Risk of transmittable blood-borne pathogens in blood units from blood donor dogs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canine blood donors can be infected by various vector-borne or other pathogens that could be an important cause of morbidity and death in transfusion recipients. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: To estimate and predict positivity to transmittable blood-borne pathogens in blood units collected from blood donor dogs in Canada. ANIMALS: Six thousand one hundred and fifty blood units from 1914 active blood donors registered to the Canadian Animal Blood Bank (CABB) between March 2010 and December 2016. METHODS: A registry-based retrospective study. Blood units were screened by SNAP 4Dx/4Dx Plus and PCR panel tests. Information on blood donors and test results were extracted from multiple databases and collated. Logistic regressions were used to predict blood unit positivity. RESULTS: Of 1779 blood units, 0.56% were antibody-positive for Anaplasma phagocytophilum/platys and 0% for Ehrlichia canis/ewingii. After exclusion of antibody-positive units to Anaplasma spp., 1.1% of 6140 blood units were PCR-positive to Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Bartonella spp., Brucella canis, "Candidatus Mycoplasma haematoparvum," Mycoplasma haemocanis, or a combination of these pathogens. Babesia spp., Ehrlichia spp., and Leishmania spp. were not detected. Units from the first blood collection from a dog had higher odds of testing PCR-positive (P < .001) for at least 1 pathogen than units from subsequent collections. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Although our study indicates a low probability of detecting blood-borne pathogen in blood units collected by this Canadian blood bank, the presence of positive units highlights the importance of the preemptive identification and screening of blood units from healthy blood donors for safe blood banking, especially in first-time 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".