Risk of transfusion‐transmitted infections among returned high‐risk deferred donors: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Blood donor selection is crucial for ensuring safe blood supply. A well-designed donor selection system helps in maintaining donor engagement by minimizing unnecessary exclusion while safeguarding transfusion safety. We aimed to assess the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) among high-risk deferred donors to evaluate deferral criteria efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included data from volunteers who were temporarily deferred because of bloodletting, high-risk sexual contact, tattooing, endoscopy and needle sticks, as well as from eligible donors who donated blood over a 12-month period. These donors were followed up for 4 years. The results of infectious confirmatory tests, including hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), of returned donors who donated blood were extracted from the database. Risk ratio (RR) of TTI was calculated to compare the risk between eligible and deferred donors. RESULTS: The data from 601,177 returned, deferred and eligible blood donors were analysed. The risk of TTIs was significantly higher in the deferred group compared to eligible donor group (RR: 3.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.68-4.80; p <0.001). The risk of TTIs was significantly higher in those deferred for bloodletting (RR = 4.85; 95% CI: 3.41-6.91; p < 0.001), tattooing (RR = 3.53; 95% CI: 1.26-3.83; p = 0.029) and high-risk sexual contact (RR = 2.19; 95% CI: 1.26-3.83; p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Individuals with a history of bloodletting, tattooing or high-risk sexual contact were at a higher risk of HBV and HCV infection, highlighting the effectiveness of donor selection procedures. Endoscopy and needle stick injuries were not associated with an increased TTI risk, emphasizing the need for further research to reassess these deferral criteria. Blood centres should monitor the efficacy of donor selection criteria while emphasizing proper donor selection and counselling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".