Compliance with gender‐neutral sexual behavior‐based blood donor screening questions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In September 2022, Canadian Blood Services replaced the time-based deferral for gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (gbMSM) with sexual behavior-based questions. All donors who had sex with a new partner or >1 partner in the last 3 months and anal sex were deferred, permitting gbMSM with one regular partner to donate. We aimed to measure compliance with the new criteria post-implementation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Pre-implementation 42,999; post-implementation 41,157 donors were invited to complete an anonymous online sexual risks survey. Results were weighted reflecting the donor base age, sex, and geography base. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 13,159 donors participated pre-implementation (33% participation, 6532 females and 6627 males of whom 183 had ever had sex with another man (gbMSM)); post-implementation 11,217 donors (28% participation, 5253 females and 5964 males of whom 188 were gbMSM). Pre-implementation 9.3% (4.3%-14.2%) gbMSM had a new or >1 partner and anal sex in the last 3 months (all ineligible), similar to post-implementation when some were eligible (8.9%, 4.1%-13.8%, p > .05). There was no difference between pre- and post-implementation for non-gbMSM males (pre- 0.7%, 0.5%-1.0% vs. post-0.7%, 0.4-0.9) and females (pre- 0.8%, 0.6%-1.0% vs. post-0.6%, 0.4-0.8%) (p > .05). The estimated non-compliance of those with deferrable behavior was 87% (79%-93%). Most donors reported being comfortable with the new questions. DISCUSSION: The majority of donors with deferrable sexual behaviors failed to disclose post-implementation. Donors may make a judgment about whether they need to disclose behaviors in screening.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".