Consenting to blood: what do patients remember?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to characterize the consent process for transfusion and determine its impact on patients' knowledge and level of comfort with receiving blood. We identified all adult patients who had received blood transfusion at a tertiary care centre over 3 months. Patients who were discharged each received a survey that assessed their (1) recall of the consent process, (2) recall of information conveyed, (3) assessment of the discussion's understandability and (4) perceived knowledge of as well as comfort level with transfusion as a result of the discussion. Overall, 80% of respondents recalled discussing and signing an informed consent. Information was mostly conveyed by attending physicians (35%) and consent obtained in the patient's hospital room (38%) or the preadmission clinic (19%). Although the majority recalled the consent process, many did not recall the discussion of specific transfusion risks or alternatives to donor blood (88%). Although the majority felt the discussion was at least somewhat understandable (77%), only 35% felt better informed and more comfortable with accepting blood. Despite implementation of written informed consent for transfusion, patients' recollection and understanding of risks and alternatives remain poor. This suggests the need for improving risk communication.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".