MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289793915 · doi:10.1002/cpz1.504

Methods to Evaluate the Potential Clinical Significance of Antibodies to Red Blood Cells

2022· article· en· W4289793915 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Blood Services
FundersHealth CanadaGovernment of CanadaUniversity of TorontoCanadian Blood ServicesAustralian Government
KeywordsAntibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicityAntibodyHemolysisImmunologyAntigenMedicineBlood transfusionRed blood cellSerologyPopulationPhagocytosisImmune systemMonoclonal antibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immune-mediated red blood cell (RBC) destruction due to antibodies is an ongoing problem in transfusion medicine for the selection of the safest blood. Serological testing often revealed incompatibility with donors' RBCs. When this incompatible blood was transfused, destruction was due mostly to extravascular-mediated phagocytosis of the antibody-opsonized RBCs; however, intravascular hemolysis was sometimes observed without explanation. Based on serology, antibodies with potential for clinical sequalae could not be ascertained; thus, antigen-negative blood was usually selected for transfusion to avoid problems. Antibodies to antigens having very high frequency in the general population (>95%), however, made selection of antigen-negative blood difficult and sometimes impossible. Some patients, who were sensitized by previous transfusions or by pregnancy, developed multiple antibodies, again creating a problem for finding compatible blood for transfusion, without the ability to discern which of the antibodies may be clinically irrelevant and ignored. Transfusion medicine scientists began searching for an in vitro means to determine the in vivo outcome of transfusion of blood that was serologically incompatible. Methods such as chemiluminescence, monocyte-macrophage phagocytosis, and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) were described. Over the years, the monocyte monolayer assay (MMA) has emerged as the most reliable in vitro assay for the prediction of the clinical relevance of a given antibody. ADCC has not been fully studied but has the potential to be useful for predicting which antibodies may result in intravascular hemolysis. This article captures the protocols for the implementation and readout of the MMA and ADCC assays for use in predicting the clinical significance of antibodies in a transfusion setting. © 2022 The Authors. Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Monocyte monolayer assay (MMA) Basic Protocol 2: Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity assay (ADCC).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it