Immunohematology testing using umbilical cord blood: review of the literature, survey of practice and guidance development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following delivery, blood tests are performed on umbilical cord blood (CB) to avoid neonatal venipuncture. Despite widespread and longstanding CB testing, no guidelines exist to suggest which immunohematology tests should be performed on CB. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a scoping review, surveyed national practice, and developed guidance statements concerning CB testing. Database searches identified relevant articles. A survey was sent to all Canadian hospitals and transfusion laboratories that perform perinatal testing. A national panel of experts was convened to develop guidance statements. RESULTS: A total of 116 articles met the inclusion criteria and were summarized. Literature on CB testing is limited; few studies have investigated laboratory testing methodologies or validated CB test results with peripheral samples. The survey was completed by 580/597 institutions (97%); 85% were community hospitals and 16% had a neonatal intensive care unit. There is diversity in the types of CB tests performed and variability in practice. While most centers order appropriately, some laboratories routinely perform CB tests that are not clinically indicated (e.g., direct antiglobulin testing for all neonates) and other do not perform CB tests when results would be beneficial (e.g., phenotype on CB when mother has a clinically significant antibody). Fifteen guidance statements were developed. DISCUSSION: This study highlights variability in CB testing, likely reflecting evidence gaps, methodology differences between studies, and lack of guidelines. CB tests should only be performed when indicated and validated on this sample type. The presented guidance statements aim to standardize practice and encourage judicious CB sampling.
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 | 0.020 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".