Relevance of quantitative assessment of bleeding in haemorrhagic disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last few years, there has been a growing interest in the diagnosis of mild bleeding disorders (MBD) to find reliable tools for the assessment of their inherent bleeding risk and minimum criteria for the definition of a clinically useful diagnosis. Unlike in more severe haemorrhagic disorders, in MBD, the bleeding history may overlap with that reported by normal people. This problem has required the development of strategies that could allow the assessment of bleeding symptoms from both a qualitative (presence or absence) and quantitative (bleeding severity) aspect. An example of high quality clinical research in bleeding disorders was given by the systematic approach used for the evaluation of menorrhagia. For this symptom, the most common in women with bleeding disorders, the use of pictorial charts provided many new insights. Dr Kadir will review its use in a clinical context. The assessment of the whole bleeding history requires first, the development of reproducible tools to collect symptoms and secondly, formulation of easily applicable criteria to convert the collected data into clinical information. Dr Tosetto will propose a bleeding questionnaire in which clinical criteria were developed and validated, and show how a summative, quantitative index of bleeding severity (the Bleeding Score) could be used in von Willebrand disease. Finally, Dr James will review the development of quantitative analysis in children, a particularly important and difficult application, but one that needs to be tackled urgently.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".