MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187030210 · doi:10.1111/trf.16574

How do I think about blood donor eligibility criteria for medical conditions?

2021· article· en· W3187030210 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mindy Goldman

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultidisciplinary approachBlood donorQuality (philosophy)Medical emergencyOperations managementEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every blood center must determine blood donor eligibility criteria for donors with medical conditions, often based on very limited published data and variable practice. This manuscript briefly outlines possible impacts of donor medical conditions on donor and recipient safety and product quality, and describes the multidisciplinary approach used in Canada to think about donor criteria issues. Many years of experience are distilled into practical considerations in determining criteria, possible sources of information, and factors for successful change implementation, to hopefully assist medical and technical staff engaged in decision-making around donor eligibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207