Is self-sufficiency in haemotherapies a practical or necessary goal?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
blood service managers has reiterated the messages embedded in the long-debated and controversial issue of self-sufficiency in haemotherapies. This issue has been part of the debate on blood supply policy for the past 40 years. As blood systems in emerging countries develop in tandem with clinical practice needs, the question of the optimal path to sufficiency is crucial. As the composition of donor populations change through demographic and other factors, and as clinical awareness of the issues around the safety and efficacy of haemotherapies influence usage, principles proposed in the 1970s may benefit from scrutiny through the modern concepts of evidence-based medicine. In particular, the established position of the patient in the centre of all blood transfusion processes may need to transcend the reflections of expert groups, however eminent. Self-sufficiency: historical development The philosophical origins of the concept of selfsufficiency date back to the 1970s, when the World Health Organization (WHO) identified an extensive trade in blood and blood products, which exploited people in poor countries and placed those receiving blood products at risk from pathogen transmission. This led a joint conference of the WHO and the International Red Cross to agree to promote voluntary blood donation systems and national self-sufficiency and a World Health Assembly resolution to that effect (WHA28.72). The context is described in the report of the Canadian Krever Commission, demonstrating the WHO's concern that donors in developing countries were being drawn into the paid plasma system at the expense of their domestic blood supply 2 . Krever also
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 | 0.045 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".