MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410288449 · doi:10.7326/annals-25-00815

Medical, Societal, and Ethical Considerations for Directed Blood Donation in 2025

2025· review· en· W4410288449 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeremy W. Jacobs, Garrett S. Booth, Mithya Lewis‐Newby, Nabiha H. Saifee, Eamonn Ferguson, Claudia S. Cohn, Meghan Delaney, Sarah L. Morley, Stephen Thomas, Rachel Thorpe, Sheharyar Raza, Meaghann S. Weaver, Jennifer S. Woo, Deva Sharma, Cynthia So‐Osman, Nalan Yurtsever, Christopher A. Tormey, Allison Waters, Mindy Goldman, Matthew Yan, Ross M. Fasano, Laura D. Stephens, Elizabeth S. Allen, Christian Erikstrup, Laura Infanti, Timothy D. Schlafer, Matthew A. Warner, Jeffrey L. Winters, Aaron A.R. Tobian, Evan M. Bloch

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCanadian Blood ServicesUniversity of Toronto
FundersDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of WashingtonVersus ArthritisErasmus Medisch CentrumUniversity College DublinNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research InstituteLincoln Memorial UniversityUniversitätsspital BaselCity of HopeVanderbilt University Medical CenterCanadian Blood ServicesChildren's Healthcare of AtlantaJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversity of WashingtonChildren's National HospitalDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins UniversitySeattle Children's Research InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAarhus UniversitetshospitalNHS Blood and TransplantUniversity of OttawaAarhus UniversitetInstitut for Klinisk Medicin, Aarhus UniversitetUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of California, San DiegoUniversity of TorontoYale UniversityStichting Sanquin BloedvoorzieningVanderbilt UniversityUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterUniversity of NottinghamEmory UniversityAflacPfizer
KeywordsMedicineDonationBlood donorIntensive care medicineFamily medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the United States and other high-income countries, blood donation primarily relies on anonymous, voluntary donors. However, directed blood donation-where people donate for a specific recipient-has resurged, particularly due to misinformation surrounding COVID-19 vaccination. Requests for "nonvaccinated" blood, driven by misconceptions about vaccine safety, have led to legislative attempts to mandate compliance. Historically, directed donation was used to mitigate the risk for transfusion-related infections before modern screening techniques rendered it largely unnecessary. Today, it presents important patient safety risks, including increased infectious disease transmission, immunologic complications, and logistic burdens. Directed donations also introduce inefficiencies, diverting resources from the community blood supply and exacerbating shortages. Moreover, directed donation for nonmedical indications lacks scientific justification. Blood safety is ensured through rigorous donor screening, pathogen testing, and processing measures. There is no evidence that blood from vaccinated donors poses risk. Requests for nonvaccinated blood, as well as other directed donation preferences based on personal beliefs, introduce biases that are not grounded in medical necessity. Accommodating such requests undermines public trust in blood safety protocols and legitimizes unfounded fears. Ethical concerns arise as non-medically justified requests reinforce discriminatory practices, such as selecting donors based on race or gender. Allowing such preferences risks politicizing blood donation, spreading misinformation, and straining health care systems. Although autonomy is a core ethical principle in medicine, it does not justify non-evidence-based interventions. Given the potential harm and societal impact, directed blood donations should be limited to rare, medically necessary cases. Ongoing legislative efforts to mandate these requests require unified opposition from the medical and scientific community to uphold ethical, evidence-based, blood allocation 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 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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0200.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207