Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction A vast amount of literature examines legal, ethical and social issues involved in collection and use of blood and other biological samples for research purposes. For example, a recent study analyzed nearly 600 papers on consent and biobank (1) Some literatuAre focuses on prospective collection of blood or other biological materials for purpose of creating biobanks as a resource for biomedical Other literature addresses secondary research use of stored samples that were initially collected for clinical purposes. In contrast with wealth of literature addressing these topics, comparatively little has been written about research use of blood that is collected by blood service agencies meet blood supply needs in health care system. Public communication intended motivate people donate blood emphasizes use of blood as a precious resource sustain and save lives. Yet, blood that is collected primarily for medical care may also be stored and used for Some recent literature underscores potential benefits of creating and using repositories of donated blood for research purposes. In an editorial in Transfusion, Allain and Busch argue we feel strongly that research repositories are key advancing field [of transfusion medicine] and should be established and maintained. (2) They also suggest that such repositories can support broader research inquiries beyond those directly related transfusion medicine, that repository samples need be made widely available scientific community and should be linked with other biobanking initiatives. (3) Other researchers discuss opportunities for using blood repositories as a resource for genetic studies. (4) Another scholar cautions, however, that broader research use of blood collected by blood banks raises questions about linking the ethic of with goal of medical research. (5)Indeed, in any efforts expand research uses of blood collected by blood service agencies, it is critically important not undermine trust that donors have in these organizations. And while Allain and Busch advocate for wide research access biorepositories of donated blood, they also acknowledge that to make these resources powerful research tools it is important address ethical and/or informed consent considerations when specimens are collected allow for their future use.... (6) This article explores issues concerning research use of blood donated blood banking organizations. It begins with an overview of practices of these organizations in retaining samples and creating biorepositories. Next, article examines donors' knowledge of and attitudes toward use of donated blood in Available research shows that donors express trust in blood banks make appropriate choices for how donated blood is used, however donors may give little thought research use and focus, instead, on use for medical care purposes. Whatever their level of awareness about research uses, donors maintain a privacy interest in retained samples. The article discusses relevant privacy aspects, then turns a discussion of consent challenges and options. Blood service organizations that wish store, use and share donated samples for research should ensure that consent for research is addressed in a manner than sustains trust relationship between blood bank and donor. The concluding section of article suggests several areas for further research inform policy options for consent research use of donated blood. Blood Service Organizations and Retention and Use of Stored Samples A survey of practices among blood service agencies in more than 15 countries found that most store samples for some period, ranging from several days indefinite storage. A distinction is noted between donation specimens retained primarily for [the blood agency's] operational purposes and collections of donor and/or recipient biospecimens that are made available research community. …
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 | 0.032 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
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".