Blood donor questionnaires and infectious disease screening in <scp>Latin American</scp> countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Blood donor questionnaires are tools used to screen prospective blood donors to determine their eligibility. There are limited data regarding blood donor questionnaires and infectious disease screening of the blood supply in Latin American countries. This study aimed to survey donor centres in Latin American countries to learn more about blood donor screening and infection assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An international team of transfusion medicine professionals including medical directors and supervisors who work or collaborate with Latin American donor centres, called 'Comité de Investigación en Medicina Transfusional', designed a survey (16 questions) to characterize blood donor eligibility in Latin America. RESULTS: Eighty-two institutions from 14 Latin American countries responded to the survey. Most donor centres (66%; 54 of 82) had a donor deferral percentage between 5% and 25%, and the most common causes of deferrals were low haemoglobin and high-risk behaviour. Most donors in blood centres were directed family donors compared with voluntary donors. Infection evaluation included mostly serologic assessment (81%; 30 of 37) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Treponema pallidum and Trypanosoma cruzi rather than nucleic acid tests (5%; 2 of 37). CONCLUSION: Heterogeneity exists in donor selection and infectious disease screening in Latin American countries. This survey provides valuable information to understand Latin American blood centre practices.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".