Filariasis and transfusion‐associated risk: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Filariae are parasitic worms that include the pathogens Loa loa, Onchocerca volvulus, Wuchereria bancrofti, Brugia spp. and Mansonella spp. which are endemic in parts of Africa, Asia, Asia-Pacific, South and Central America. Filariae have a wide clinical spectrum spanning asymptomatic infection to chronic debilitating disease including blindness and lymphedema. Despite successful eradication programmes, filarial infections remain an important -albeit neglected - source of morbidity. We sought to characterize the risk of transfusion transmission of microfilaria with a view to guide mitigation practices in both endemic and non-endemic countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review of scientific publications as well as grey literature was carried out by a group of domain experts in microbiology, transfusion medicine and infectious diseases, representing the parasite subgroup of the International Society of Blood Transfusion. RESULTS: Cases of transfusion-transmitted filariasis are rare and confined to case reports of variable quality. Transfusion-associated adverse events related to microfilariae are confined to isolated reports of transfusion reactions. Serious outcomes have not been reported. No known strategies have been implemented, specifically, to mitigate transfusion-transmitted filariasis yet routine blood donor screening for other transfusion-transmissible infections (e.g. hepatitis B, malaria) may indirectly defer donors with microfilaremia in endemic areas. CONCLUSION: Rare examples of transfusion-transmitted filariasis, without serious clinical effect, suggest that filariasis poses low transfusion risk. Dedicated mitigation strategies against filarial transfusion transmission are not recommended. Given endemicity in low-resource regions, priority should be on the control of filariasis with public health measures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".