Development of haemophilic arthropathy of the ankle: results of a Delphi consensus survey on potential contributory factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence base to support the prevention of haemophilic arthropathy remains incomplete. In particular there is a lack of evidence regarding the potential influence of non-haematological factors. Additionally the ankle joint, the most affected joint in the primary prophylaxis era, has biochemical and structural features that should offer some protection from degeneration. Therefore, this study aimed to ascertain expert opinions on the potential contributory factors in order to inform a research agenda. The Delphi method, a group forum technique to achieve consensus of expert opinion was selected. It allows anonymous participation of a geographically disparate panel. A modified three-round design was used with a multi-professional international panel from 11 countries, 280 suggestions with the potential to influence arthropathy development were submitted in Round 1. These were analysed for theme, giving 47 factors in four categories: musculoskeletal intrinsic, extrinsic affecting physical health, compliance, education and non-haematological management, and haemophilia related. Subsequently, consensus was ascertained on their importance for study. At survey completion, 31 panellists (86%) completed. 41 factors reached the pre-selected level for consensus and 6 were rejected. The breadth of the factors put forward suggests that the panel believe pathogenesis of HA is multifactorial. Panel composition indicates results with high face and content validity capable of guiding future research. Developing an understanding of the relative influence of factors in each patient has the potential of not only individualizing replacement therapy with regard to frequency and trough levels but also individualizing other interventions that promote musculoskeletal health.
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 | 0.059 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".