MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1836842894 · doi:10.1111/vox.12323

Development of standard definitions for surveillance of complications related to blood donation

2015· article· en· W1836842894 on OpenAlexaff
Mindy Goldman, Kevin J. Land, Pierre Robillard, Johanna C. Wiersum‐Osselton

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsHéma-QuébecCanadian Blood Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood donorDonationMedicineIntensive care medicinePolitical scienceImmunologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standard definitions of donor reactions allow each blood establishment to monitor donor adverse events and compare with other organizations to develop best practices. The ISBT Haemovigilance Working Party leads a multi-organizational effort to update the 2008 ISBT standard for surveillance of complications related to blood donation. Revised definitions have been developed and endorsed by the ISBT, AABB, International Haemovigilance Network (IHN) and other international organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0150.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVox SanguinisSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207