Clinical effects of blood donor characteristics in transfusion recipients: protocol of a framework to study the blood donor–recipient continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: When used appropriately, transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs) is a necessary life-saving therapy. However, RBC transfusions have been associated with negative outcomes such as infection and organ damage. Seeking explanations for the beneficial and deleterious effects of RBC transfusions is necessary to ensure the safe and optimal use of this precious resource. This study will create a framework to analyse the influence of blood donor characteristics on recipient outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a multisite, longitudinal cohort study using blood donor data routinely collected by Canadian Blood Services, and recipient data from health administrative databases. Our project will include a thorough validation of primary data, the linkage of various databases into one large longitudinal database, an in-depth epidemiological analysis and a careful interpretation and dissemination of the results to assist the decision-making process of clinicians, researchers and policymakers in transfusion medicine. Our primary donor characteristic will be age of blood donors and our secondary donor characteristics will be donor-recipient blood group compatibility and blood donor sex. Our primary recipient outcome will be a statistically appropriate survival analysis post-RBC transfusion up to a maximum of 8 years. Our secondary recipient outcomes will include 1-year, 2-year and 5-year mortality; hospital and intensive care unit length of stay; rehospitalisation; new cancer and cancer recurrence rate; infection rate; new occurrence of myocardial infarctions and need for haemodialysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our results will help determine whether we need to tailor transfusion based on donor characteristics, and perhaps this will improve patient outcome. Our results will be customised to target the different stakeholders involved with blood transfusions and will include presentations, peer-reviewed publications and the use of the dissemination network of blood supply organisations. We obtained approval from the Research Ethics boards and privacy offices of all involved institutions.
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 | 0.130 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.007 |
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".