Validity of the Portuguese CHO‐KLAT in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is essential to assess the health-related quality of life outcomes of boys with haemophilia in Brazil. The Canadian Haemophilia Outcomes-Kids Life Assessment Tool (CHO-KLAT) was recently adapted for this population. AIM: To test the construct validity of the Portuguese version of the CHO-KLAT. METHODS: We recruited 50 boys, with moderate [factor VIII (FVIII) level 1-5%] or severe (FVIII level <1%) haemophilia, to participate in a descriptive study to establish a baseline understanding of the current status of boys with haemophilia in Brazil. All boys were required to complete the Brazilian CHO-KLAT and Brazilian Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) by self-report. We examined the correlation between the CHO-KLAT and PedsQL scores to establish the construct validity of the Brazilian version of the CHO-KLAT. RESULTS: We obtained CHO-KLAT and PedsQL data from 35 boys with severe haemophilia and 15 with moderate haemophilia. They ranged in age from 7.3 to 18.0 years, with a mean of 13.0 years. They reported a mean CHO-KLAT score of 72.3 (range = 44.1-93.9). The mean PedsQL score was 79.9 (range = 45.7-96.7), with physical health (mean of 83.9) being better than psychosocial health (77.8). The Pearson's correlation between CHO-KLAT and PedsQL was 0.47 respectively (P < 0.001). The CHO-KLAT had a moderate and inverse relationship with the degree to which they were bothered by their haemophilia (ρ = -0.53), while the PedsQL had a weaker relationship (ρ = -0.27). CONCLUSION: The results confirm the validity of the Portuguese version of the CHO-KLAT. This measure is now available for clinical trials in boys with haemophilia in Brazil.
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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".