Discrepancies in Rh(D) typing of sensitized red blood cells using monoclonal/polyclonal anti-D reagents: case report and review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instructions included with monoclonal Rh(D) typing reagents do not require routine use of an Rh control as immunoglobulin-coated red blood cells (RBCs) rarely yield falsely positive results with low protein reagents. However, the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) Technical Manual recommends a concurrent control be performed on patients' RBCs that type as group AB, D(+). Proficiency testing surveys presented sensitized AB, D- RBCs, which resulted in a positive direct antiglobulin test and, in some samples, spontaneous agglutination in saline. One intent of the surveys was to monitor the accuracy of the reported Rh(D) type. On an initial survey, 19 of 115 (16.5%) participants reported the RBCs as D(+). Of these laboratories, 63.2 percent (12/19) had used a monoclonal/ polyclonal blend anti-D reagent. On a subsequent survey, after educational material had been distributed, only five of 113 (4.4%) participants reported the Rh type as D(+). Two of these five laboratories had used a monoclonal/polyclonal blend anti-D reagent. As RBCs coated with immunoglobulin may give unreliable results with Rh typing reagents, laboratories should follow the guidelines of the AABB Technical Manual. An appropriate control should be performed whenever RBCs from patients type as AB, D(+).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".