Implementation of sexual risk behavior donor screening in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The two Canadian blood suppliers, Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec, removed the time-based deferral for men who have sex with men and adopted criteria assessing sexual risk behaviors. We report the impact of these changes on the safety and adequacy of the Canadian blood supply. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Since 2022, all donors are asked if (1) they have had a new partner and (2) more than one sexual partner in the last 3 months. Donors answering yes to either question are asked if they had anal sex in the last 3 months; if yes, they are deferred for 3 months. We followed HIV rates for the 18 months before and 14 (Héma-Québec) or 18 months (Canadian Blood Services) post-implementation and interviewed HIV-positive whole blood donors. We assessed the number and characteristics of whole blood donors answering yes to the two first questions with or without deferral. RESULTS: There were four HIV-positive donations out of 1,492,355 donations pre-implementation and four out of 1,447,772 post-implementation (0.27/100,000 vs. 0.28/100,000, p = 1.00). Post-implementation, one HIV-positive donor was non-compliant with multiple criteria, no risk factors were identified in the others. 3.2% of donors answered yes to questions (1) and/or (2); 0.17% were deferred for a new partner and/or more than one partner and anal sex. Deferral rates were highest in first time, younger donors, and similar in males and females. CONCLUSION: Implementation of sexual risk behavior donor screening resulted in unchanged HIV rates to date and a manageable deferral rate.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".