MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023097317 · doi:10.1111/trf.15824

Comprehensive analysis of hepatitis B virus infections in blood donors in southern China that are surface antigen positive but nucleic acid testing negative

2020· article· en· W3023097317 on OpenAlexaff
Xianlin Ye, Tong Li, Ruohao Zhang, Heng Liu, Jinfeng Zeng, Wen‐Xu Hong, Liang Lü, Weigang Zhu, Shilin Li, Min Xu, Shaobo Wu, Limin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Initiative for Innovative Medicine
KeywordsVirologyNucleic acidAntigenImmunologyMedicineHepatitis C virusVirusBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is one of the major concerns for the safety of blood transfusion in high‐prevalent countries such as in China. Prior studies outside of China have shown hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) false‐reactive rate of 0.02% to 0.04%. Similarly, false‐negative HBsAg and HBV DNA results may occur in infected donors. Our study analyzed HBsAg enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)‐reactive but NAT‐negative donations in Shenzhen Blood Center, China. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS HBsAg ELISA‐positive/NAT‐negative plasma samples identified from screening 101,025 donations during 2017‐2018 were analyzed by molecular and serologic tests including neutralization, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and various HBV DNA amplification assays. Molecular characterizations of HBsAg‐positive/NAT‐negative samples were determined by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and nested PCR amplification of the basic core and precore promotor regions (295 base pairs) and HBsAg (S) region (496 base pairs). RESULTS Screening of 101,025 eligible blood donations identified 157 (0.16%, 95% confidence interval, 0.13%‐0.18%) HBsAg ELISA‐positive/NAT‐negative plasma samples; of those, 71 (45.2%) were HBsAg confirmed positive by further HBsAg testing and DNA positive by molecular tests with increased sensitivity. Of the 71, all but one was antibody to hepatitis B core antigen reactive without antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen, yielding one recent (window‐period) HBV infection. Of the remaining donations, 80 (51%) were not considered as HBV‐infected donors, and 6 (3.8%) were interpreted as indeterminate since HBsAg results were discordant with unconfirmed HBV DNA results. In the 71 confirmed positives, HBsAg levels ranged from 0.05 to 400 IU/mL and HBV DNA from 6 to 2654 IU/mL; however, the correlation between the two was weak (R 2 = 0.24). CONCLUSION Fewer than half of HBsAg ELISA‐positive/NAT‐negative samples were confirmed as HBsAg positive. Our study demonstrates that in highly HBV‐endemic countries, assays with high sensitivity and specificity may be required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207