Quality of Life in Adolescents and Adults with Thalassemia: A Report of the Thalassemia Longitudinal Cohort.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 556 Background: Advances in the treatment of thalassemia have led to increased life expectancy, making outcomes such as health related quality of life (HRQOL) especially important in assessing interventions. However little has been published about the HRQOL of patients living with thalassemia. We report the baseline data from the Thalassemia Clinical Research Network's (TCRNs) Thalassemia Longitudinal Cohort (TLC) study. Patients and Methods: The TCRN is an NIH sponsored network of 16 major thalassemia centers in the US, Canada and London. This study is part of the TCRN's longitudinal cohort (TLC) study. HRQOL was measured by self-report with the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey version 2 (SF36v2), a generic measure of functional health status and well being with results reported as 8 subscale and two summary measures. It has been validated in numerous populations and diseases, and is considered the gold standard for measuring HRQOL. We report here the results from 245 patients over the age of 14 who completed baseline assessments. Comparisons within the study population and with US norms using t-test and linear regression were performed. Results: There were 245 patients [47% male; mean age 29 years (range 14-58)]. When compared to US norms, TLC patients had statistically significant (p<0.05) worse HRQOL on 5 of the 8 SF36v2 subscales (physical functioning, role-physical, general health, social functioning and role-emotional) and on both summary scales (physical component summary and mental component summary). As is also seen in the US population, women had worse HRQOL than men on all subscales except vitality, and on both component summary scores. HRQOL decreased with age in all scales, more so than expected compared to US norms. Conclusions: In general, adolescents and adults with thalassemia have worse HRQOL than the US population, despite contemporary therapy. Further investigation is needed to determine predictors of low HRQOL so that these may be better addressed by a multidisciplinary team. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".