Psychometric evaluation of a patient‐reported symptom assessment tool for adults with haemophilia (the HAEMO‐SYM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In patients with haemophilia, repeated bleeding events result in significant comorbid conditions that can degrade health-related quality of life. Clinician-reported symptom measures are available for use in patients with haemophilia A or B; however, there has not been a validated patient-reported symptom evaluation instrument available for haemophilia to date. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a self-report instrument, the HAEMO-SYM, for measuring symptom severity in patients with haemophilia. Eighty-four haemophilic subjects from Canada and the USA were enrolled and completed the HAEMO-SYM, SF-36, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Functional Disability Index (HAQ-FDI). Four-week reproducibility was evaluated in 72 stable subjects. Construct validity was assessed by correlating subscale scores with the SF-36, HAQ-FDI, a coping questionnaire and clinical scores. The final 17-item HAEMO-SYM has two subscales: pain and bleeds. Internal consistency reliability was good (Cronbach's alphas, 0.86-0.94) and test-retest reliability was good (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients, 0.75-0.94). HAEMO-SYM subscale scores were significantly correlated with SF-36 scores (P < 0.05 for all except HAEMO-SYM Pain and SF-36 Mental Health), HAQ-FDI scores (P < 0.05 for all but HAEMO-SYM Bleeds with HAQ-FDI Hygiene and Reach), Gilbert scale (P < 0.01), coping (P < 0.05) and global pain (P < 0.001). Mean HAEMO-SYM scores varied significantly in groups defined by severity, HIV status and treatment regimen. Greater symptom severity was associated with more severe disease, HIV-positive status and prophylaxis treatment. The results of this study suggest that the HAEMO-SYM, a haemophilia-specific symptom severity instrument, has good reliability and provides evidence that supports construct validity in patients 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".