Laboratory detection of donors implicated in transfusion‐transmitted malaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transfusion-transmitted malaria (TTM) is rare in non-endemic areas (non-EAs) but can potentially be fatal. This review analyzes the laboratory results of donors causing TTM in non-EAs, to assess the detectability of their Plasmodium infection by molecular or antibody tests. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: TTM cases in the United States, Canada, and Europe since 2010 were identified through a literature review. Authors and laboratories were contacted for missing details about sample types and laboratory methods. Results of Plasmodium polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antibody tests were summarized. RESULTS: Twelve cases of TTM and one bone marrow transplant transmission were identified. Of the 13 source donors, 12 were tested by PCR, 10 were positive on at least one sample; the 2 negative donors were tested only on retained segments of blood refrigerated for several weeks. All donors were PCR positive on a fresh sample except one who was positive on a retained but not a fresh sample. These PCRs targeted Plasmodium DNA with sensitivities in the range of 1000-10,000 parasites/mL. Antibody EIA was positive in only three of seven donors tested. DISCUSSION: This review found that antibody EIAs failed to detect four of the seven TTM donors tested. DNA-based PCRs were able to detect Plasmodium infection in all donors tested except for two tested only on samples likely to have deteriorated from prolonged storage. Recently developed ribosomal RNA-based molecular donor screening assays are approximately 1000 fold more sensitive than these DNA-based PCRs, holding promise as a potential method to further reduce TTM.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".