Impact of a 5‐year deferral from blood donation for men who have sex with men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM) changed from a permanent deferral since 1977 to a 5-year deferral on July 22, 2013, in Canada. We assessed the impact on safety and adequacy of the blood supply at Canadian Blood Services. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) rates were monitored from January 1, 2010, to July 21, 2015. Risk factors were assessed in notification interviews. Anonymous online surveys of male whole blood donors assessed compliance before and after implementation. RESULTS: HIV rates were 0.2, 0.5, and 0.51 per 100,000 donations in 2010 to 2012; they were 0.54 and 0.22 in the first and second years after implementation (p = 0.8). Of four male HIV-positive donors after implementation, three denied risk factors and one knew he had HIV. Before implementation 9669 of 19,437 (49.7%) donors participated in the survey, and after implementation, 6881 of 18,934 (36.3%). Before implementation 0.67% of male donors were noncompliant, and after implementation, 0.44%. There was no difference before versus after implementation in male donors with MSM history in the past 5 years (0.37% vs. 0.43%, p = 0.54). After implementation, eligible MSM donors increased (0.42% vs. 0.66%, p = 0.04), with approximately 500 more donors in 2014. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a 5-year deferral for MSM had no impact on HIV rates in 2 years of postimplementation monitoring. Donor compliance improved after implementation due to MSM donors who were previously ineligible becoming eligible. There was no change in the percentage of male donors with recent male partners but there was a modest increase in eligible MSM in the donor pool.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".