MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319502339 · doi:10.1055/s-0031-1297175

Quality of Life in Children Requiring Antithrombotic Therapy: Development of a Measure

2011· review· en· W2319502339 on OpenAlexaff
Aisha Bruce, Mary Bauman, M. Patricia Massicotte

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntithromboticMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialIntensive care medicinePopulationPhysical therapyPsychiatryNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurement of quality of life (QOL) has been accepted as an important outcome measure in therapeutic clinical trials. Long-term antithrombotic therapy is hypothesized to induce treatment dissatisfaction and influence QOL. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) can be measured by an inventory developed specific to the patient condition. Pediatric QOL inventory for children on long-term antithrombotic therapy should assess constructs salient for this population. Creation of an HRQOL measurement inventory requires rigor and methodological adherence. Identification and evaluation of QOL constructs is critical to improve care and is accepted as the "gold standard" measurement for patient-centered outcomes in clinical research. The use of a valid and reliable HRQOL inventory specific for the antithrombotic therapy is required for upcoming clinical trials as it will provide a method to measure change in HRQOL specific to the antithrombotic agent. In this way, it will be possible to provide the child/family with information to make safe and effective therapeutic choices, define future antithrombotic therapy research strategies, and inform decision makers to change policies to improve health care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.328
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.133 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Thrombosis and HemostasisSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207