MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407380028 · doi:10.2196/60467

Interpreting the Influence of Using Blood Donor Residual Samples for SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Studies in Japan: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

2025· article· en· W4407380028 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ryo Kinoshita, Shô Miyamoto, Tadaki Suzuki, Motoi Suzuki, Daisuke Yoneoka

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeroprevalenceCross-sectional studyPopulationDemographyLogistic regressionConfoundingOddsBlood donorEnvironmental healthImmunologySerologyInternal medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlabelled: Background: Residual blood donor samples are commonly used in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiological studies; however their use may introduce bias due to the healthy donor effect, wherein blood donors are generally healthier than the general population. This potential bias is critical for accurately interpreting seroepidemiological data, as blood donors might not fully represent broader population-level infection rates., Objective: This study aims to assess the potential bias in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates derived from blood donor samples in Japan by examining the association between blood donation history and COVID-19 diagnosis. By quantifying the healthy donor effect, we seek to refine the interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiological studies using residual blood donor samples., Methods: We conducted a web-based survey from December 14 to 28, 2023, recruiting 10,781 Japanese residents aged 16-69, stratified by demographic factors to match national representation. Participants provided information on demographics, socioeconomic status, COVID-19 vaccination history, comorbidities, and blood donation experience. A logistic regression model adjusting for confounders such as age, sex, education, occupation, comorbidities, and vaccination status, was used to estimate the odds of COVID-19 diagnosis among blood donors compared to nondonors., Results: Of the 10,781 participants, 3583 (33.2%) reported a history of COVID-19 diagnosis, and 5015 (46.5%) indicated they had donated blood at least once in their lifetime, and 1128 (10.5%) donated within the last year. Blood donors had mean of 13.5 (SD 43.6) donations and were older, with a mean age of 46.4 (SD 13.9) years, compared to 38.5 (SD 14.1) years for nondonors. Among blood donors, 39.9% had comorbidities (95% CI 38.5-41.2) compared to 27.9% (95% CI 26.7-29.0) of nondonors. Blood donors had 1.62 (95% CI: 1.48-1.78) times higher odds of COVID-19 diagnosis compared to nondonors. The higher diagnosis rate among blood donors likely reflects increased social interactions and health-seeking behaviors, a phenomenon we refer to as the inverse healthy donor effect. This suggests that blood donor samples could overestimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence when generalized to the broader Japanese population., Conclusions: Higher COVID-19 diagnosis rates among blood donors may reflect increased community involvement and health-seeking behaviors, suggesting an inverse healthy donor effect. This pattern indicates that in terms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, blood donors might not represent the healthiest segment of the population. Consequently, seroprevalence studies using blood donor samples could overestimate SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in the general Japanese population. For more accurate public health surveillance, the development of statistical methods to adjust for this bias is recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.190
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→