Hepatitis B infections among blood donors in <scp>England</scp> between 2009 and 2018: Is an occult hepatitis B infection a risk for blood safety?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is one of the most frequent infections identified in blood donors in England and represents an ongoing blood safety risk. We have analyzed markers of HBV infections in blood donors in England between 2009 and 2018 and used these to estimate the likelihood of non-detection of occult HBV infection (OBI). METHODS: We collected epidemiological, virological, and genotyping information on HBV cases identified in England, 2009-2018. The estimated risk of non-detection and likely transmission of OBI were compared to lookback and transfusion-transmitted infections surveillance data. RESULTS: Six-hundered and fifty-five HBV-infected blood donors were identified in England during the 10-year period; 598 chronic, 32 acute, and 25 occult HBV infections. However, most donors with chronic and occult infections were born in Eastern Europe, Africa, or Asia (451/544, 83% and 14/24, 58%); acute infections were largely seen in UK-born donors (19/28, 68%). Genotyping of 266 HBV-positive samples revealed five genotypes (A-E), reflecting ethnicity and country of birth. Most OBIs were identified in repeat donors (19/25); lookback data identified a transmission rate of 8.3%. It is estimated that at least 13 potentially infectious donations from donors with OBI remain undetected annually, equating to an overall residual transmission risk of 3.1 per million donations using our current screening strategy of HBsAg screening with HBV nucleic acid testing (NAT) in pools of 24. CONCLUSIONS: OBI accounted for the majority of the HBV residual risk in England. Further cost-benefit analysis is required to estimate if our current HBV screening strategy should be changed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".