Incidence of acute haemolytic transfusion reaction among <scp>ABO</scp>‐incompatible recipients transfused with <scp>A<sub>3</sub></scp> blood: A case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives ABO antigens are among the most immunogenic, but the haemolytic risks of ABO incompatibilities involving a donor with a weak ABO phenotype are little documented. Materials and Methods This retrospective case series assessed the incidence of acute haemolytic transfusion reaction (AHTR) among ABO‐incompatible recipients of A3 blood in Québec (Canada). Transfusion safety officers reported laboratory AHTR indicators measured ≤24 h pre‐ and post‐transfusion. Because the AHTR case definition of Québec's Hemovigilance System (QHS) leaves significant room for clinical judgement, a two‐step approach was used to assess potential cases: Step 1 consisted in a highly sensitive—but unspecific—initial screen that identified all candidate cases per QHS case definition, and Step 2 consisted in a detailed review of candidate cases by two haematologists. Results Nine donors initially typed as Group B (N = 1) or O (N = 8) were subsequently found to display an A3B or A3O phenotype. Eighty‐one recipients received ABO‐incompatible blood, including 53 (65.4%) with interpretable data. Of these, 29 (54.7%) were classified as candidate cases after Step 1. Following Step 2, no conclusive evidence of AHTR was found: Abnormal pre‐ versus post‐transfusion changes appeared modest, within normal range, insufficient to ascertain AHTR, or were consistent with a pre‐existing condition unrelated to AHTR. Two candidate cases had a QHS‐reported transfusion reaction; both were unrelated to AHTR. Conclusion In this case series, no conclusive evidence of serious AHTR was found among ABO‐incompatible recipients who were inadvertently transfused with A3 blood.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".