Perceptions and motivations of Canadian autologous blood donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preoperative autologous blood donation in Canada has increased in the last decade due to concerns about allogeneic blood safety. As economic policies necessitate the validation of autologous blood donation, it is important to assess potential changes. This study examines the motivations and perceptions of patients participating in a Canadian autologous blood donation programme. The study was conducted at the Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus. Questionnaires were developed and then administered to 100 consecutive adult autologous blood donors. The questionnaires assessed patient demographics, motivation for participation and perceptions about blood safety. Autologous donation was presented to 82% of patients as an option by their physicians. However, 59% of all patients felt that they were motivated to donate by their own fears. Patients (87%) also felt that directed blood donation should be offered due to their perception that directed donation is safer. Three-quarters of patients would be willing to pay for autologous donation. Patients are concerned about the safety of allogeneic blood and they are motivated to seek other alternatives despite the fact that allogeneic blood is very safe. These perceptions and motivations must be taken into account as health care policy changes are considered.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".