Comparing hand‐held computers and paper diaries for haemophilia home therapy: a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment of severe haemophilia with factor concentrates is by self-infusion in the home. Adherence to record keeping on paper diaries is poor. A randomized-controlled trial compared adherence with record keeping of paper diaries with hand-held computers. Forty-one individuals with severe haemophilia, were randomized to hand-held computers (n = 22) or paper diaries (n = 19) and followed for 6 months. About 86.2% (679 of 788) of infusions by patients in the computer group were in compliance with the data submission schedule compared with only 48.3% (358 of 741) of infusions by patients using paper diaries (P < 0.0001). The time intervals between infusions and the receipt of data were shorter in the computer group (median 0.25 vs. 25 days respectively, P < 0.0001). Reminder phone calls by the clinic were made less frequently to users of hand-held computers than to users of paper diaries (median one vs. five times, P < 0.0001). Accuracy of data was similar for both methods. Compliance with hand-held computers was superior to paper diaries. The clinic received data from hand-held computers mostly on the same day, and nurses could thereby provide clinical advice more effectively. Although hand-held computers did not result in increased accuracy, errors could be detected and corrected more rapidly. Electronic data can more easily be verified, analysed and summarized than that from paper diaries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".