Frequency and risk factors for donor reactions in an anonymous blood donor survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adverse donor reactions can result in injury and decrease the likelihood of donor return. Reaction reports captured in the blood center's database provide an incomplete picture of reaction rates and risk factors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed an anonymous survey, mailed to 40,000 donors in 2008, including questions about symptoms, height, weight, sex, and donation status. Reaction rates were compared to those recorded in our database. Possible risk factors were assessed for various reactions. RESULTS: The response rate was 45.5%. A total of 32% of first-time and 14% of repeat donors reported having any adverse symptom, most frequently bruising (84.9 per 1000 donors) or feeling faint or weak (66.2 per 1000). Faint reactions were two to eight times higher than reported in our database, although direct comparison was difficult. Younger age, female sex, and first-time donation status were risk factors for systemic and arm symptoms. In females, low estimated blood volume (EBV) was a risk factor for systemic symptoms. Only 51% of donors who consulted an outside physician also called Canadian Blood Services. A total of 10% of first-time donors with reactions found adverse effects information inadequate. CONCLUSION: This study allowed us to collect more information about adverse reactions, including minor symptoms and delayed reactions. Based on our findings of the risk factors and frequency of adverse reactions, we are implementing more stringent EBV criteria for younger donors and providing more detailed information to donors about possible adverse effects and their management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".