Risk of Exposure to Zika Virus and Impact on Cord Blood Banking and Adult Unrelated Donors in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: The Canadian Blood Services Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zika virus has emerged as a potential threat to the Canadian blood supply system. Stem cell donors within Canadian Blood Services' Cord Blood Bank (CBB) and OneMatch Stem Cell and Marrow Network (OM) now undergo screening measures designed to reduce the risk of Zika virus transmission. The impact these screening measures have on cord blood and unrelated adult stem cell donations is currently unknown. Among 146 donor workups initiated by OM between July 2016 and May 2017, 102 were completed and 44 workups were canceled. There were 17 potential donors (11.6%) with a risk of Zika virus exposure identified by the donor questionnaire (13 completed, 4 canceled workups). None of the workups involved a donor diagnosed with confirmed Zika virus within the past 6 months. Only 1 of the 44 canceled workups (and only 1 of 4 cases with a risk of Zika transmission) was canceled because of the risk of Zika transmission, and a backup donor was selected. Canadian Blood Services' CBB identified 25 of 875 cord blood units (2.9%) from women who donated their infants' cord blood and underwent screening that otherwise met the initial cell number thresholds for banking and had at least 1 risk factor for exposure to Zika virus. No women were diagnosed with Zika virus at any point of their pregnancy. All 25 units were discarded. Unrelated donors at OM have a higher incidence of a risk of exposure to Zika virus compared with cord blood donors. Only rarely did transplant centers cancel donor workups due to potential Zika virus exposure. The impact of screening for Zika virus exposure risk on cord blood banking was minor. Continued vigilance and surveillance is recommended.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".