MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551772511 · doi:10.1111/hae.13089

Evaluation of the utility of the <scp>ISTH</scp>‐<scp>BAT</scp> in haemophilia carriers: a multinational study

2016· article· en· W2551772511 on OpenAlexaff
Paula James, Johnny Mahlangu, Christoph Bidlingmaier, María Eva Mingot‐Castellano, Meera Chitlur, Patrick Fogarty, Adam Cuker, Maria Elisa Mancuso, Pål André Holme, Julie Grabell, Natasha Satkunam, Wilma M. Hopman, Prasad Mathew

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemophilia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersBayer
KeywordsHaemophiliaMedicineHaemophilia APopulationHaemophilia BObservational studyInternal medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There has been increasing recognition in recent years that female carriers of haemophilia manifest abnormal bleeding; however, data on the use of bleeding assessment tools in this population are lacking. AIM: Our objective was to validate the ISTH-BAT in haemophilia carriers to describe bleeding symptoms and allow for comparisons with factor levels and other patient groups. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational, cross-sectional study performed by members of Global Emerging HEmostasis Panel (GEHEP). Unselected consecutive haemophilia carriers were recruited and a CRF and the ISTH-BAT were completed by study personnel. RESULTS: = -0.36, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results show that haemophilia carriers experience abnormal bleeding, including haemarthrosis. Overall, BS in women with Type 1 VWD > haemophilia carriers > Type 3 VWD OC > controls. Understanding the performance of the ISTH-BAT in this population is a critical step in future research aimed at investigating the underlying pathophysiology of abnormal bleeding, with the ultimate goal of optimizing treatment.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations97
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaemophiliaSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207