The utility of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis-Bleeding Assessment Tool and other bleeding questionnaires in assessing the bleeding phenotype in two platelet function defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to investigate the utility of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis-Bleeding Assessment Tool (ISTH-BAT) in comparison with the condensed form of Molecular and Clinical Markers for the Diagnosis and Management of type 1 and WHO BATs, in assessing bleeding in two well known and clinically significant platelet function defects. Thirty-eight patients previously diagnosed with Glanzmann's thrombasthenia and 10 with Bernard-Soulier syndrome (BSS) were analyzed. Bleeding scores were significantly higher than that of controls using both electronic bleeding questionnaire (eBQ) and ISTH-BAT with no significant difference between both tools. ISTH-BAT had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 100%, 76.2%, 0.9 and 1. This was closely similar to eBQ. Both ISTH-BAT and eBQ are efficient in BSS and Glanzmann's thrombasthenia. However, given the ISTH recommendation, ISTH-BAT should be adopted. Larger study including other platelet defects will enhance its utility and support the integration of bleeding scores with standardized laboratory testing to allow for a universal diagnostic approach to patients with suspected bleeding 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".