{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023952095808383235, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02155688622754491, 'mean_word_length': 4.573333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of assays for anti‐HBc in blood donors

ABSTRACT: Testing for anti‐HBc has been recommended for use as a paradoxical or surrogate marker of carriers of non‐A, non‐B hepatitis. Serial sampling on a pool of 35,600 donors was done and those donors found to be repeatedly reactive by EIA method were rested using RIA methodology. Of 1367 donors found to be repeatedly reactive by EIA method, only 984 were confirmed by RIA. Those found to be reactive by EIA only were allowed to donate blood again, with only three of them becoming positive by both EIA and RIA on subsequent donations. The majority of these donors (107 out of 151) reverted to EIA negative status. Therefore, the finding of a positive anti‐HBc by EIA method that could not be repeated by RIA method is not an early reproducible sign of anti‐HBc reactive status.