The Influence of Physical Activity to the Quality of Life in Pediatric with Haemophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the influence of physical activity to the quality of life in pediatric with haemophilia. Methods. 32 patients with severe haemophilia A and B were enrolled in the study, including 16 boys from Toronto Sick Kids hospital rehabilitation department and 16 – from Children‘s Hospital Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Center. The age range was 4-17 years. Patient‘s joints state was assessed by Haemophilia Health Joint Score (HJHS), functional independence by Functional Independence Score in Haemophilia (FISH) and quality of life by using the Canadian Children with Haemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire (CHO-KLAT). Statistical analysis was performed using „SPSS Statistics 20“. Results and conclusions. Our results showed that children with haemophilia receiving prophylactic treatment and regular physical therapy have significantly better joint state, functional independence and quality of life. Children psychoemotional state, quality of treatment and opportunities to participate in sporting activities have significant impact on their quality of life. The prophylactic treatment and physical therapy should be combine and well organized in order to improve children with haemophilia quality of life in Lithuania. Article in Lithuanian doi:10.5200/sm-hs.2012.043
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".