Hyperventilation as a Predictor of Blood Donation–Related Vasovagal Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Most of the research on vasovagal reactions has focused on the contributions of cardiovascular activity to the development of symptoms. However, other research suggests that additional mechanisms like hyperventilation may contribute to the process. The goal of the present investigation was to examine the influences of cardiovascular and respiratory variables on vasovagal symptoms. METHODS: This study was part of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of behavioral techniques on the prevention of vasovagal reactions in blood donors. Data from the no-treatment control group were analyzed. The final sample was composed of 160 college and university students. Observational and self-report measures of symptoms were obtained. Physiological variables were measured mainly using respiratory capnometry. RESULTS: Although respiration rate remained stable throughout donation, change in end-tidal carbon dioxide was associated with requiring treatment for a reaction during donation (odds ratio = 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41 to 0.79, p = .001) and self-reported symptoms measured in the postdonation period using the Blood Donation Reactions Inventory (β = -0.152, 95% CI = -0.28 to -0.02, t = -2.32, p = .022). Individuals with higher levels of predonation anxiety displayed larger decreases in end-tidal carbon dioxide throughout the procedure (F(2,236) = 3.64, p = .043, ηp = 0.030). Blood Donation Reactions Inventory scores were related to changes in systolic (β = -0.022, 95% CI = -0.04 to -0.004, t = -2.39, p = .019) and diastolic blood pressure (β = -0.038, 95% CI = -0.06 to -0.02, t = -4.03, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the vasovagal reaction has traditionally been viewed as a primarily cardiovascular event, the present results suggest that hyperventilation also plays a role in the development of vasovagal symptoms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".