Notification of blood donors who test positive for transfusion‐transmissible infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite screening procedures, a few blood donors confirm positive for transfusion-transmissible infections and are deferred. Effective notification of laboratory results is essential to ensure that donors are advised of confirmed results and to seek medical care. Here we report results from post-notification interviews of Canadian Blood Services donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over 17 years, 2006-2022, all donors with confirmed positive results for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV) and syphilis were notified by registered mail of their result and advised to see a physician. In a separate communication, all donors were later invited to participate in a scripted interview asking whether they tested positive for an infection; if yes, which one, what their reaction was, whether they consulted a physician and whether public health contacted them. Frequencies of responses were calculated. RESULTS: Of 2654 donors with confirmed positive test results, 876 (33%) participated; 90% said they were informed of a positive test result. Of these, about a quarter did not know for which infection they were positive. Most were surprised, and some were sad or disappointed. Most saw a physician after notification (77%). About two-thirds with HBV or HCV said they were contacted by public health, slightly fewer (58%) with syphilis, 27% of those with HTLV. CONCLUSION: Most donors recalled being notified and were aware of their positive test, but details of the infection were sometimes not understood or recalled, and not all donors consulted a physician about the infection.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".