Donor deferral policies for men who have sex with men: where are we today?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The review summarizes recent publications on the contentious issue of donor deferral criterion for men who have sex with men (MSM). RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies from the United States and China demonstrated that MSM is still a frequent risk factor for HIV-positive donors. Noncompliance is an important factor in the overall risk of HIV transmission but does not appear to be affected by the length of the deferral period. A major US study found a 2.6% noncompliance rate with the current indefinite deferral for MSM; similar or lower rates were found in other jurisdictions with shorter deferral periods. Several countries have had a defined deferral period of 1 year or 5 years in place long enough to determine that increases in HIV-positive cases predicted by modeling studies did not actually occur, suggesting that the assumptions made in these models are overly conservative. SUMMARY: In summary, MSM eligibility policies are slowly changing around the world, with the US FDA now permitting a 1-year deferral. Transparency, involvement of stakeholders, and careful evaluation of risk and societal benefit should be part of future policy discussions on this issue.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".