Normal range of bleeding scores for the ISTH‐BAT: adult and pediatric data from the merging project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bleeding Assessment Tools (BATs) have been developed to aid in the standardized evaluation of bleeding symptoms. The Vicenza Bleeding Questionnaire (BQ), published in 2005, established a common framework and scoring key that has undergone subsequent modification over the years, culminating in the publication of the ISTH-BAT in 2010. Understanding the normal range of bleeding scores is critical when assessing the utility of a BAT. Within the context of The Merging Project, a bioinformatics system was created to facilitate the merging of legacy data derived from four different (but all Vicenza-based) BATs; the MCMDM1-VWD BQ, the Condensed MCMDM-1VWD BQ, the Pediatric Bleeding Questionnaire and the ISTH-BAT. Data from 1040 normal adults and 328 children were included in the final analysis, which showed that the normal range is 0-3 for adult males, 0-5 for adult females and 0-2 in children for both males and females. Therefore, the cut-off for a positive or abnormal BS is ≥4 in adult males, ≥6 in adult females and ≥3 in children. This information can now be used to objectively assess bleeding symptoms as normal or abnormal in future studies.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".