Detection of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis C virus, and hepatitis B virus in postmortem blood specimens using infectious disease assays licensed for cadaveric donor screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of assay performance on postmortem blood specimens (obtained after cessation of the heartbeat) presents unique scientific and regulatory challenges. In the United States, assay performance is evaluated in part by spiking postmortem specimens. METHODS: Fifty-four specimens obtained from decedents known to be infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or hepatitis B virus (HBV), including some coinfections, were tested for each virus using Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-licensed donor screening tests for nucleic acid, antibody, and antigen. RESULTS: For each disease, >95% of subjects who were reported to have an infection at the time of death had a positive test result on at least one of the donor screening assays for that infection. CONCLUSION: Licensed donor screening tests were positive on postmortem specimens obtained within 24 hours of death from individuals dying with HIV, HCV, and/or HBV, and were able to detect presence of the virus. The use of multiple tests (including antibody and direct viral detection methods) is necessary to adequately evaluate donors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".