International validation of harmonized definitions for complications of blood donations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In December 2014, a multinational collaboration of hemovigilance experts from the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT), the International Hemovigilance Network, and AABB published harmonized definitions of complications related to blood donation titled "Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation." Both mandatory and optional terms were included. The definitions are endorsed by the Alliance of Blood Operators and the European Blood Alliance. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The objective of this study was to validate harmonized donor hemovigilance definitions with potential users. In June 2016, 30 real-world cases were sent to potential users around the world along with the definitions, an answer sheet, and instructions on how to complete the validation exercise. RESULTS: Overall, 54 responses from 25 countries were received, including over 400 comments. The results were presented for feedback at both ISBT and AABB meetings. Case diagnoses were consistent across most responders. Exceptions were rare adverse events, nonstandard presentations, or incomplete information. In general, the application of optional definitions, including severity grading and imputability, had the most variability. CONCLUSION: The use of standardized terms in the donor setting serves to increase focus on donor safety, facilitate conversation, foster exchange of information, and frame questions for future research. Overall, the definitions provide adequate coverage of donor reactions; however, some terms require clarification. Severity grading and imputability and other optional terms need clear and objective definitions and instructions on when and how to use them. Additional feedback and final recommendations are summarized in this report.
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 | 0.318 | 0.362 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".