Higher rates of laboratory‐confirmed cases of syphilis in Western Canadian blood donors compared with Eastern Canadian blood donors following a period of societal re‐opening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a growing infectious syphilis outbreak in Western Canada. Although blood donors are screened for syphilis risks, some blood donors will still be confirmed test-positive for syphilis. This study compares the characteristics of confirmed test-positive syphilis donations in both Western Canada and Eastern Canada, November 2022-August 2023. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Donors were defined as Western or Eastern Canadian. Blood donations were tested for syphilis using the PK-TP assay (Beckman Coulter PK7300 Automated Microplate System). Confirmatory Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA) and rapid plasma reagin (RPR) assays were performed by one of two reference laboratories. An RPR titre ≥1:8 was used as a proxy for possible infectious syphilis. RESULTS: Rates of laboratory-confirmed syphilis were higher in Western (n = 43, 13.4/100,000 donations) versus Eastern donors (n = 19, 4.7/100,000 donations; Fisher's exact test, two-sided, p ≤ 0.0001). Most syphilis confirmations were in first-time donors (Western Canada n = 31/43, 72.1%, Eastern Canada 12/19, 63.2%). CONCLUSION: Although rates of laboratory-confirmed syphilis were higher in Western versus Eastern donors, Western donors did not have higher rates of infectious syphilis. Further studies might assess whether donors with laboratory-confirmed syphilis understood pre-donation screening questions or were completely unaware of a past infection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".