A survey of medication and raw food use among canine blood donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood donors are screened for medication use to determine their health status and to ensure that the collection will be safe and efficacious for transfusion. Although stringent medication deferral guidelines exist for human blood donors, no consensus exists as to which medications should be permitted among canine donors. METHODS: A brief survey regarding canine donor screening methods was distributed to an online hematology and transfusion medicine group and included questions pertaining to commonly prescribed medications and consumption of a raw food diet. KEY FINDINGS: The survey results demonstrate that more than half of the respondents accept canine donors given thyroid supplements, whereas respondents were split as to whether they accept canine donors given antihistamines chronically. Most survey respondents exclude canine donors taking anti-inflammatory or anti-itch medications unless in acute circumstances and only after a washout period. More than half of the survey respondents exclude dogs fed a raw food diet. SIGNIFICANCE: The survey results demonstrate that there is no obvious agreement regarding which medications to permit in canine donors. Evidence-based guidelines are needed to inform best practices and the subsequent decisions made by donor programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".