Contemporary use and safety of prepartum autologous blood donation: A retrospective cohort study in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autologous blood donation (ABD) can be indicated in pregnant individuals with rare blood groups. Yet, unlike hospitals, some blood establishments are reluctant to collect ABDs in this population. Therefore, we evaluated the safety and use of prepartum ABD conducted by a blood establishment. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive cohort study used data from the ABD program in Québec, Canada, and patient medical data reported by treating physicians. Patients were included if they were pregnant, enrolled in Québec's ABD program between January 2010 and January 2021 (i.e., study period) and had a rare blood group. RESULTS: Twenty-four individuals met the inclusion criteria (mean age at first referral = 31.7 years; 21 [87.5%] first-time donors) and initiated 52 ABDs. Three mild vasovagal reactions (VVRs) were recorded, while no moderate or severe vasovagal reactions (VVRs) were observed. Of the 41 units distributed to the hospitals' blood banks, none were transfused to the mother; 3 were transfused to the fetus or newborn. Most fresh unused units were salvaged and cryopreserved post-delivery (75.0%). Twenty-seven (51.9%) ABDs were made <3 weeks of the expected date of delivery. All seven individuals with available data on iron supplementation had iron deficiency, but only two (28.6%) received intravenous iron. DISCUSSION: ABDs may be safely carried out by a blood establishment among pregnant individuals. Transfusion rate is low; however, the majority of donated units are successfully recovered. Improvements will be made to the program by developing specific guidance to target iron deficiency management and timing of donation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".