Evaluation of the confidential unit exclusion form: the Canadian Blood Services experience
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the mid-1980s, confidential unit exclusion (CUE) was implemented to permit donors unwilling to admit risk factors in screening to exclude their donation from transfusion. With changes in donor behaviour, epidemiology of disease and improvements in testing, many blood establishments have stopped using it. We evaluated its benefit in Canada, and reported its utility in predicting transmissible-disease (TD) and high-risk behaviour. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: TD-positive donations and incident cases between 2004 and 2008 were analyzed in CUE-safe and CUE-unsafe designated donations. An anonymous survey of 40,000 donors asked about CUE use and risk factors. RESULTS: There were 7104 (0.15%) donations designated CUE-unsafe of 4,775,044 donations. Most TD-positive donations were designated CUE-safe (1023/1030, 99.32%) with only seven (0.68%) designated CUE-unsafe. Of 95 incident cases, all were designated CUE-safe including three NAT-yield cases (1 HIV and 2 HCV). In the survey, some donors found the CUE difficult to understand [10.5% (first-time), 3.2% (repeat)], only half thought that the blood would still be tested [48.9% (first-time), 45.9% (repeat)], and about a fifth believed that collection site staff could see their designation. No survey respondents who used the CUE admitted to risk behaviour, but about 1% of donors who designated CUE-safe had high-risk behaviours. CONCLUSION: The data do not provide any indication of a safety benefit from CUE, but CUE use results in a small but constant loss of apparently safe donations.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it