International Comparison of the Eligibility Criteria for Apheresis Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There has not been a comprehensive review to compare the international eligibility criteria for apheresis donation. This study assessed the international variations of the eligibility criteria for apheresis donors to help improve our national criteria for safer and more efficient screening of donors. Methods: We reviewed the websites of the American Red Cross, Canadian Blood Service, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, New Zealand Blood Service, Japanese Red Cross Society, Hong Kong Red Cross (HKRC), Health Sciences Authority of Singapore and the National Blood Service of the UK (NBS) and the European Union (EU). Only those criteria that were different from ours were analyzed. Results: A considerable number of differences were identified between the international criteria and our criteria. The lower age limit was 17~18 years and the upper limit were 50~69 years for plasma donation and 50~59 years for platelet donation. The regulations for donation frequency ranged from none to 12~57 times/year for plasma and none to 12~24 times/year for platelets. The donation interval for plasma and platelets was 1~4 weeks. A minimum hemoglobin level of 12.5 g/dL was used in most countries, excluding the HKRC (11.5 g/dL for women). The NBS and EU had criteria regarding the volume of donation. Conclusion: Different international eligibility criteria for apheresis donors are used according to the characteristics of each country. Thus, the compiled data from various countries will provide the basis to improve our national eligibility criteria for apheresis donors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".