Balancing non‐discriminatory donor selection and blood safety in the Netherlands: Evaluation of an individual risk assessment of sexual behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To better balance the safety of the blood supply and the inclusion of men who have sex with men (MSM), further improvements are needed to the risk management strategy employed in the Netherlands to reduce transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs). A gender-neutral individual risk assessment could provide a solution by determining donor eligibility based on sexual behaviors known to increase the risk of TTIs. Our objective is to estimate the proportion of blood donors that would be deferred by such an assessment, as well as their discomfort answering such questions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Two surveys were distributed in May 2020 to assess sexual behavior in blood donors in the last 4, 6, and 12 months, as well as their discomfort reporting such information. A combination of both surveys measured the extent to which discomfort was associated with reporting sexual behavior. A high-risk sexual behavior pattern was defined as having had multiple sexual partners and having engaged in anal sex, without consistent condom use. RESULTS: Of all 2177 participating whole blood donors, 0.8% report engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors over the last 4 months and would therefore be ineligible to donate. When accounting for the additional proportion of donors that reported such questions would stop them from donating, 2.0% and 3.2% of female and male donors, respectively, would be lost. DISCUSSION: Gender-neutral eligibility criteria based on high-risk sexual behaviors may reduce the overall number of eligible donors in the Netherlands, but could make blood donation more accessible to a broader group of donors.
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 | 0.005 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".