Weak D type 42: Antigen density and risk of alloimmunization in the province of Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A high proportion of suspected weak D patients referred to Héma-Québec were genotyped as weak D type 42 (368/2105, 17.5%). These patients are currently considered D with regard to RhD immunoprophylaxis in pregnancy and transfusion. The goal of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the risk of alloimmunization in weak D type 42 patients and to characterize their RhD surface molecule expression on red blood cells (RBCs) in comparison to other weak D types (1, 2 and 3). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis using the weak D type 42 patients' medical data to verify potential anti-D alloimmunization events was conducted. Quantitative analyses using flow cytometry were also performed on RBCs to quantify the cell surface density of the D antigen. RESULTS: Data on 215 subjects with weak D type 42 were reviewed. None developed immune allo-anti-D; three had definite exposure to D+ red cells and 41 had possible exposure through pregnancy. Flow cytometry analysis showed that weak D types 1, 2, 3 and 42 had relative antigen densities of 2.7%, 2.2%, 8.1% and 3.6%, respectively, with R1R2 red cells referencing 100% density. The estimated antigen density range of weak D type 42 was 819-1104 sites per RBC. CONCLUSION: Our retrospective alloimmunization data analysis and antigen density study establish a basis for the consideration of a weak D type 42 individual as D+. This consideration would allow for a targeted reduction of RhD immunoprophylaxis in pregnancy and the unjustified use of D- units for transfusion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".