Haemophilia Experiences, Results and Opportunities (<scp>HERO</scp>) study: treatment‐related characteristics of the population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The HERO (Haemophilia Experiences, Results and Opportunities) quantitative surveys collected information on characteristics and perceptions of adult persons with haemophilia (PWH) and parents of children with haemophilia. The aim of this article is to describe the perceptions of PWH and parents on psychosocial aspects related to treatment. Two online surveys (one for PWH, one for parents) were conducted in 10 countries. Among 675 PWH respondents, 77% reported having responsibility for their own care; 72% of 561 parent respondents had the main responsibility for their son. PWH were most commonly treated on demand (45% of 648 adults using factor concentrate), with 32% on regular prophylaxis and 23% treated on demand with short-term prophylaxis (e.g. for sports/physiotherapy). Children were most often treated with prophylaxis (65% of 549 children using factor concentrate), with 26% treated on demand and 8% treated on demand with short-term prophylaxis. Factor was generally used as instructed at home. Some respondents (41% PWH; 30% parents) had difficulties/concerns with factor availability/affordability. PWH reported more bleeds in the last 12 months than parents reporting their son's bleeds (mean 17.8 vs. 8.7). Both PWH and parents generally perceived that overall, their (their son's) haemophilia was well controlled. Results differed by country. The HERO study captured new, patient-based data regarding many facets of life relevant to PWH, including treatment. The information conveyed in this article largely represents new insights regarding perceptions of treatment and provides initial benchmark statistics for further research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".