Frequency of rare, serious donor reactions: International perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe blood donor adverse events are rare, but due to their rarity studying them can be difficult. To get an accurate estimate of their frequency and rate in the donor population it may be necessary to combine donation data across countries. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: International blood collection organizations (BCOs) provided data on rare/severe donor reactions as well as denominator information for their donor populations from 2015 to 2017. Donor reactions were classified using standardized definitions. RESULTS: BCOs from six countries provided reaction data for more than 22 million donations. A total of 480 rare reactions were reported of which 76.7% were imputed as definite and 11% probable. Rates of rare reactions were higher in females and first-time donors. Systemic rare reactions were the most common reaction type, accounting for over three quarters of reactions reported. Of systemic reactions, vasovagal reactions with loss of consciousness and injury or off-site (n = 350) made up the majority and occurred 1.53 per 100,000 donations. For the 22.3% that were localized reactions, the majority of these were cellulitis (n = 71, 0.31 per 100,000 donations) followed by deep venous thrombosis (n = 21, 0.09 per 100,000 donations). CONCLUSION: Pulling together data from multiple BCOs across countries allows for a better understanding of rare reactions, such as vasovagal reaction with injury or cellulitis, and for generating a reliable incidence rate for air embolism or compartment syndrome. However, gaps remain due to missing elements such as unknown donor status or location of reaction.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".