Bone properties and muscle strength of young haemophilia patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate bone properties, muscle strength and the relationship between the two, in young (7.0-17.7 years) haemophilia patients (h) and healthy boys (c). SUBJECTS: Twenty-seven boys with severe haemophilia and 33 healthy boys, of similar age, body mass, height, (mean +/- sd for h and c, respectively: 11.2 +/- 3.2 vs. 11.4 +/- 2.9 years, 42.6 +/- 16.6 vs. 41.6 +/- 17.3 kg, 145 +/- 18 vs. 146 +/- 17 cm) and pubertal stage according to secondary sex characteristics, volunteered for the study. all subjects were physically inactive (as determined by questionnaire). METHODS: Subjects performed isokinetic elbow and knee extension and flexion tests at two angular velocities (biodex system ii dynamometer). Bone properties were evaluated by qualitative ultrasound (sunlight omnisense), at the distal radius and tibial mid-shaft. H subjects received prophylactic factor viii treatment within the 24 h preceding testing. No test was performed in the presence of haemorrhage. RESULTS: Muscle strength was consistently higher in c compared with h, especially in the lower limbs (e.g. knee extension: 1.80 +/- 0.44 vs 1.48 +/- 0.53 N x m x kg(-1) body mass, respectively, p = 0.01). No differences were observed in tibial or radial speed of sound between groups. Correlations between muscle strength and bone properties were observed only in the lower limbs and only in c (r = 0.37-0.48). CONCLUSION: Muscle strength, especially lower limbs' strength, was lower in haemophilia patients compared with a matched, similarly inactive population of healthy boys. Nevertheless, at this age range, this relative weakness is not associated with inferior bone properties.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".