Reaction rates in allogeneic donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada and several other countries, there is an upper age limit for blood donation. In order to evaluate the safety of whole blood donation in elderly Canadian allogeneic donors, we analysed reaction rates following whole blood donation. Reactions rates in allogeneic whole blood donors who donated at Canadian Blood Services were reviewed retrospectively. Rates were analysed by age, donation frequency and by donation frequency for each age group. A total of 5478 reactions were available for analysis in 469 837 donors. The highest rate of mild reactions occurred in donors less than 20 years of age. Moderate and severe reactions decreased with increasing age and with donation frequency. Age-adjusted rates for mild reactions were less frequent in donors aged 66-77 years than in donors younger than 20 years. Although age-adjusted moderate reactions varied with donation frequency, after seven donations, rates were not increased for donors aged 60 years or older (0.61% for donors aged less than 20 years compared to 0.03% for donors aged 60-65 years compared to 0% for donors aged 66-71 years). Age-adjusted rates for severe reactions generally did not increase with donation frequency. These results confirm the safety of whole blood donation in regular donors who are 66-71 years of age.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".