Nondisclosure of use of antiretroviral medications in Canadian blood donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Donors are deferred if they are on antiretroviral medications (ARV) as post-exposure or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PEP or PrEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We assessed donor compliance by measuring ARV levels in selected anonymized donor samples collected from September 22, 2022 to December 31, 2024, almost all after the introduction of sexual risk behavior screening. METHODS: EDTA plasma samples collected at the time of donation (retention samples) were retrieved, frozen, and shipped for measurement of tenofovir and emtricitabine. Samples were from randomly selected first-time male donors in large urban areas (n = 520), syphilis (n = 133), or HIV (n = 6) confirmed positive donors, and donors deferred for PEP or PrEP use on a previous donation attempt who returned to successfully donate (n = 225 tests, 115 unique donors). We compare our results to international studies. RESULTS: All samples from first-time male donors, HIV-positive donors, syphilis-positive female donors, and female donors previously deferred for PEP or PrEP were negative. Three of 110 male syphilis-positive donors (2.7%) and 14 of 85 male donors previously deferred for PEP or PrEP (16.5%) were positive for ARV. Eleven of these donors were tested multiple times, and 10 were positive more than once. CONCLUSION: Results on syphilis-positive male donors were similar to findings in England and the Netherlands. Noncompliance with criteria for ARV use was high in male donors previously deferred for PEP/PrEP. Messaging regarding recipient risk is particularly difficult in this group, since it is at odds with the reduction in individual HIV risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".