Utility of the ISTH bleeding assessment tool in predicting platelet defects in participants with suspected inherited platelet function disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ISTH bleeding assessment tool (ISTH-BAT) was developed to record bleeding symptoms and to aid diagnosis in patients with a possible bleeding disorder. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the utility of the ISTH-BAT in predicting functional defects in platelet activation in participants with suspected inherited platelet function disorders. PATIENTS/METHODS: Participants with clinical evidence of excessive bleeding and suspected inherited platelet function disorders and healthy volunteers were recruited to the Genotyping and Phenotyping of Platelets study (GAPP; ISRCTN 77951167). The ISTH-BAT questionnaire was applied by a trained investigator prior to lumiaggregometry. RESULTS: One hundred participants were included (79 with suspected inherited platelet function disorders, and 21 healthy volunteers). The ISTH-BAT score in participants with suspected inherited platelet function disorders (median 12; interquartile range [IQR] 8-16) was significantly higher than in healthy volunteers (median 0; IQR 0-0). There was no difference between participants with suspected inherited platelet function disorders with a platelet defect detected by lumiaggregometry (median 11; IQR 8-16) and those with normal platelet function (median 12; IQR 8-14) (P > 0.05). The ISTH-BAT score was not associated with a demonstrable platelet defect on platelet function testing (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.501 [95% confidence interval 0.372-0.630, P = 0.98] and odds ratio 1.01 [95% confidence interval 0.93-1.09, P = 0.91]). CONCLUSIONS: The ISTH-BAT is a powerful tool for documenting lifelong bleeding history. However, the score obtained is not predictive of the presence of a platelet defect on lumiaggregometry in patients with suspected inherited platelet function disorders.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".