Is donating blood for the faint of heart? a systematic review of predictors of syncope in whole blood donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adverse events during donation negatively impact the likelihood of subsequent donation. Syncope is a possible complication of blood donation in healthy individuals. This systematic review aims to identify risk factors for syncope in healthy blood donors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Web of Science, Transfusion Evidence Library, and PubMed libraries up to November 2016 were searched. Inclusion criteria were observational and interventional trials, case series including more than 10 participants, randomized controlled trials, and clinical trials. Papers required data pertaining to syncopal events separate from presyncope for inclusion. Incomplete text or non-English language versions were excluded. Papers were evaluated using the CHARMS 2014 checklist. RESULTS: From 3316 papers, 1297 unique citations were identified, and 11 were selected for data extraction. Sex, estimated blood volume, age, donor status, blood pressure, heart rate, weight, previous reaction, caffeine, sleep, and donation site were identified as risk factors for syncope during blood donation. CONCLUSION: Possible risk factors for syncope in healthy blood donors have been identified that could allow for improved screening prior to donation and potential reduction in donor attrition due to negative experiences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".