ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Machine learning-based prediction of fainting during blood donations using donor properties and weather data as features.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence-based predictive models for adverse blood donor reactions: a systematic review of immediate and delayed events and clinical data approaches.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in blood donor management: A narrative review.Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- AI Applications in Transfusion Medicine: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions.Acta haematologica · 2025Review
- Prediction of 12-month recurrence of pancreatic cancer using machine learning and prognostic factors.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Predicting vasovagal reactions to needles with anticipatory facial temperature profiles.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesFainting is a well-known side effect of blood donation. Such adverse experiences can diminish the return rate for further blood donations. Identifying factors associated with fainting could help prevent adverse incidents during blood donation. MATERIALS AND
methodsData of 85,040 blood donations from whole blood and apheresis donors within four consecutive years were included in this retrospective study. Seven different machine learning models (random forests, artificial neural networks, XGradient Boosting, AdaBoost, logistic regression, K nearest neighbors, and support vector machines) for predicting fainting during blood donation were established. The used features derived from the data obtained from the questionnaire every donor has to fill in before the donation and weather data of the day of the donation.
resultsOne thousand seven hundred fifteen fainting reactions were observed in 228 846 blood donations from 88,003 donors over a study period of 48 months. Similar values for all machine learning algorithms investigated for NPV, PPV, AUC, and F1-score were obtained. In general, NPV was above 0.996, whereas PPV was below 0.03. AUC and F1-score were close to 0.9 for all models. Essential features predicting fainting during blood donation were systolic and diastolic blood pressure and ambient temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure.
conclusionMachine-learning algorithms can establish prediction models of fainting in blood donors. These new tools can reduce adverse reactions during blood donation and improve donor safety and minimize negative associations relating to blood donation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.