Hemophilia joint health score reliability study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Measurement of joint health is critically important when assessing children with haemophilia. Few measures exist; they lack sensitivity to small changes, don't account for normal development and were never formally validated. To address these concerns, the Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) was developed by modifying existing scores. OBJECTIVE: To test the inter-observer and test-retest reliability of the HJHS. METHODS: Using a fully factorial design, four physiotherapists (from Canada, the United States and Sweden) examined eight boys with severe haemophilia A on two consecutive days using the HJHS. The boys ranged in age from 4-12 years and presented with variable joint damage. Six index joints (elbows, knees and ankles) were assessed on 11 impairment items including swelling, flexion and extension loss and gait. Concordance was measured by the intra-class correlation co-efficient. RESULTS: Reliability of the HJHS was excellent with an inter-observer co-efficient of 0.83 and a test-retest of 0.89. CONCLUSION: This study is the first in a series to assess the psychometric properties of the HJHS, a promising new measure of joint health in boys with haemophilia.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it