Medication use in Canadian blood donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Policies regarding medication use vary between blood centres. We evaluated medication use in eligible Canadian Blood Services whole blood donors to inform possible process improvements and allow comparisons between donors and the general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All donors are asked about medication use in the last 3 days, and medications and their reason for use are documented in our donor computer system. Donor computer records were reviewed from January 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022 to extract information on medications by donor age and sex; medications were grouped into therapeutic classes. Stability of medication use over time was determined in a random sample of 100 donors who made at least two donations in the study period. RESULTS: One-third of successful (eligible) donors were taking medications; of these, 80% were on one or two medications. Five classes of medication accounted for 72% of medication use, and 13 classes account for 93% of use. Use remains relatively stable over time. CONCLUSION: Medication use is common, with a few classes accounting for most use. Drop-down lists and storage of information from one donation to the next may enhance efficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".