Current perceptions of Canadian autologous blood donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We determined the perceptions and motivations of autologous donors to establish their regard for this process and the new blood system established in 1999 in Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were surveyed before and after orthopaedic, cardiac, urological or gynecological procedures. RESULTS: Patients (n = 100; 57 men and 43 women) ranged in age from 19 to 83 years. Most had finished high school, and 21 had a university degree. Eighty-four had undergone previous surgery and 27 a previous transfusion. Fifty-one had been blood donors and 17 had been autologous donors. Specialists suggested donation to 78 of the patients. Seventy-two participated because they knew that their blood would be there. Three had a mistrust of the blood provider. Sixty-six believed that there is still a risk of receiving contaminated blood. Sixty-nine thought any risk was > or = 1 in 100,000; however, 16 thought the risk was < 1 in 1000. Postsurgery, 83 were happy to have donated their blood and 77 would do it again. Many felt that it improved their outcome. Most felt an increased sense of safety. Eighty-three patients were confident that the Canadian blood system had improved, but 17 were unsure. CONCLUSIONS: Concern about the safety of the allogeneic blood supply still drives the wish to autodonate. The process gives patients a sense of control and security. A large proportion of people felt that the Canadian blood system had improved, as determined by this 2003 study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".