Autologous blood donation, decision making factors used by preoperative patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this descriptive study was to gain insight into factors used by preoperative patients to make a decision to donate autologous blood. Twelve patients who donated autologous blood preoperatively participated in the study. Qualitative analysis revealed four major categories that described the patient perspective and experience: preparing for surgery: the likelihood of requiring a tr nsfusion; dealing with the anticipated blood loss during surgery; the autologous blood donation experience; and the autologous blood donation outcomes and future considerations. Demographic findings were consistent with the literature that a major benefit of autologous blood donation is the reduced risk for homologous blood transfusion. Other factors such as choosing autologous blood donation from multiple options presented, amount of anticipated blood loss during surgery and cost-effectiveness of autologous blood donation were not revealed as motivators used in decision-making. The physician played a key role in recommending autologous blood donation. The nurse played a key role as a resource prior to and during the autologous blood donation. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".