P‐BB‐76 | The Use of Mixed Reality Technology within the Donor Collection Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed Reality (MR) is a form of augmented reality—an immersive and interactive experience able to enhance a user's environment. Here we report early results from a pilot study to evaluate MR's usability, impact on anxiety, and safety in blood donation Whole blood donors ≥18 years old were enrolled in an IRB approved prospective observational study at 2 US blood centers. After study consent, eligible donors were provided a MR headset with independently developed software to wear during blood donation. Pre-donation (PrD) and post-donation surveys were conducted and donor reaction (rxn) data reviewed. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed on survey data. This analysis includes 193 enrolled donors (see Table 1). Overall, 78.9% donors wanted to try MR during donation as it seemed fun/different/cool/interesting. 70.3% donors reported it was moderately, very, or extremely easy to use the MR headset with overall similar acceptance across various age groups (p = .12), and 58% stated they would use MR again during donation with the highest future interest in the 18–19 and 40–49 years age groups. For PrD anxiety, 30.6% (59/193) had little anxiety and 23.7%(45/193) had moderate, high, or extreme anxiety. 40% 1st time and 37.5% 18- to 19-year-old age group donors reported moderate, high, or extreme PrD anxiety which was statistically higher than other donation frequency categories or donation age (p < .05). For donors with PrD anxiety, 69.3% (70/101) responded that MR reduced their anxiety, specifically MR reduced anxiety somewhat in 39.6% (40/101) and significantly in 29.7% (30/101). 5.9% (6/101) and 2.0% (2/101) reported that MR somewhat and significantly increased their anxiety, respectively. The rate of pre-faint rxns and hematoma (hm) in donors using MR was 4.1% (8/193) and 1.0% (2/193), respectively, although the pre-faint rxn rate at Site 1 was 0.6% (1/156) versus 18.9% (7/37) at Site 2. The baseline pre-faint rxn and hm rate is 1.8% and 0.68% at Site 1 and 1.9% and 4.6% at Site 2 (Site 2 hm rate includes all phlebotomy incidents). TABLE 1: Donor demographics*
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".