Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review what we, as physicians, should know about informed consent when ordering transfusions for our patients. SOURCE: In December of 1984 a patient having coronary artery bypass surgery was transfused with a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive blood component. Sixteen years later, the patient died of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-related pneumonia. This case led to the Krever Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada. PRINCPAL FINDINGS: Physicians should be aware of the medical/legal issues of ordering transfusion of blood or blood products. Central to this is the principle that "Every human being of adult years and of sound mind has the right to determine what shall be done with his or her own body". Justice Krever recommended physicians should obtain informed consent for the administration of blood and blood products. This should be documented in the chart as well as reported in the discharge summary and in a letter to the referring physician. Informed consent must be voluntary, the patient must have capacity to consent and must be properly informed. A patient has the right to refuse treatment even when it is clear that the treatment is necessary to preserve life or health. However, a refusal must also be informed and carefully documented. CONCLUSION: Physicians should seriously consider abiding by the recommendations of the Krever Commission. Though not yet official standards of care, physicians following these recommendations will likely avoid successful litigation regarding allogeneic blood transfusions.
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 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".