Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was designed to investigate hemochromatosis patients' suitability as blood donors as well as their perceptions and experience with the current public donation system. Participants were gathered from a list of current hemochromatosis patients (n=120) and members of the Canadian Hemochromatosis Society (n=1000). Of the 1120 surveys mailed out to these groups, 801 surveys were returned completed. The sample respondents had a mean age of 57.44 years (SD=12.73; range 19 to 87 years), and 57% were men. It was found that 20% (160) of the respondents have donated blood since their diagnosis; however, only 12% of the respondents indicated that they use voluntary blood donation as a means of maintaining their iron levels. Forty per cent of the respondents indicated that they had been refused from voluntary donation. Despite the fact that in May 2001 the Canadian Blood Services, in collaboration with the Canadian Hemochromatosis Society, began a promotion campaign to encourage hemochromatosis patients to become voluntary blood donors, the present study found that 15% of the respondents reported having been refused from the voluntary blood donation service due to the diagnosis of hemochromatosis. With respect to quality of life, it was found that individuals who donate blood were generally healthier with respect to physical functioning and bodily pain, however, these findings may indicate that hemochromatosis patients who are healthier are better able to donate at public blood banks, rather than that voluntary blood donation has an effect on the donors' physical functioning over phlebotomy clinic users. These study findings suggest that although there may be other medical factors limiting individuals from donating, hemochromatosis patients are interested in being voluntary blood donors and this potential resource is currently under-used.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".