Physical therapy and imaging outcome measures in a haemophilia population treated with factor prophylaxis: current status and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Routine infusions of factor VIII to prevent bleeding, known as prophylaxis, and other intensive therapies are being more broadly applied to patients with haemophilia. These therapies differ widely in replacement product usage, cost, frequency of venous access and parental effort. In order to address residual issues relating to recommendations, implementation, and evaluations of prophylaxis therapy in persons with haemophila, a multinational working group was formed and called the International Prophylaxis Study Group (IPSG). The group was comprised of haemophilia treaters actively involved in studies of prophylaxis from North America and Europe. Two expert committees, the Physical Therapy (PT) Working Group and the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Working Group were organized to critically assess existing tools for assessment of joint outcome. These two committees independently concluded that the WFH Physical Examination Scale (WFH PE Scale) and the WFH X-ray Scale (WFH XR Scale) were inadequately sensitive to detect early changes in joints. New scales were developed based on suggested modifications of the existing scales and called the Haemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) and the International MRI Scales. The new scales were piloted. Concordance was measured by the intra-class correlation coefficient of variation. Reliability of the HJHS was excellent with an inter-observer co-efficient of 0.83 and a test-retest value of 0.89. The MRI study was conducted using both Denver and European scoring approaches; inter-reader reliability using the two approaches was 0.88 and 0.87; test-retest reliability was 0.92 and 0.93. These new PT and MRI scales promise to improve outcome assessment in children on early preventive treatment regimens.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".