Effect of Mild Hemophilia A on Quality of Life Using the SF-36.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using a cross-sectional study design we determined the impact of mild hemophilia A on quality of life. Adult males (n=47) with the same mutation (Val2016ala) were compared to unaffected adult males (n=32). The Short Form-36 (SF-36) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) were used to measure quality of life and physical function. Measures included bleeding history, Body Mass Index (BMI), age, and viral status. Using the SF-36, mild hemophilia was found to be statistically and negatively associated with quality of life in both the general health scale (p<0.039) and role emotional (p<0.005) dimensions. Age (>40) was associated with lower quality of life in four of eight dimensions namely, physical functioning (p<0.023), bodily pain (p<0.049), general health scale (p<0.034) and role emotional (p<0.025). A positive viral status of hepatitis (HCV) was found to be negatively associated with bodily pain (p<0.044) in affected males. Finally, those who experienced bleeding episodes (>2 in previous 5 years) were also associated with lower quality of life in social functioning (p<0.02) and the health transition scale (p<0.043). Additionally, a greater than 5-point difference was found in affected males in five out of eight dimensions when compared to the Canadian male population. No significant differences were found between groups from the HAQ scores. Mild hemophilia A, age, bleeding frequency and a positive hepatitis status were found to negatively affect quality of life in our study.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".