MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcome Measures in Childhood Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura: Relationship of Bleeding Severity, Quality of Life, and Platelet Count.

2006· article· en· W2590839479 on OpenAlexaff
Cindy Neunert, George R. Buchanan, Victor S. Blanchette, Dorothy Barnard, Nancy L. Young, Christine Curtis, Robert J. Klaassen

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioLaurentian UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHematologistThrombocytopenic purpuraPediatricsQuality of life (healthcare)PlateletPopulationGrading (engineering)Internal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is one of the most common disorders requiring the attention of a pediatric hematologist. The most feared outcome of ITP is intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), which fortunately is a rare occurrence in children. Although a rise in platelet count and presumed reduction in risk of ICH are stated therapeutic aims, it is equally important to identify and understand additional outcome measures which are subject to change in this population. These include health-related quality of life (QoL), treatment side effects, cost, and bleeding severity. A QoL questionnaire for pediatric acute and chronic ITP has recently been developed and validated. During the validation study (Pediatr Blood Cancer, 46:692, 2006), grading of hemorrhage and platelet count were also assessed. This report describes the results of a secondary data analysis using the validation study database. Our purpose was to assess the relationship between bleeding severity and QoL, previously not reported. Ninety children (mean age 9.7 yrs.) with ITP (41 acute, 49 chronic) were prospectively enrolled at six North American centers. Platelet count and bleeding severity were measured at baseline. Bleeding severity was assessed using a modification of a previously published grading instrument (J Pediatr, 141:683–8, 2002) where each patient was assigned a grade of 0 (no bleeding) to 5 (life-threatening bleeding) based on the overall amount of hemorrhage in the previous twenty-four hours. QoL scores were obtained by proxy-report by parents on behalf of their child and self-report by children age seven and older. Parents also reported their own QoL. Using a two- tailed Pearson correlation, the bleeding severity grade was weakly correlated with the platelet count in the children with chronic ITP (r= 0.20, p<0.001), but this relationship did not reach significance for children with acute ITP (r= 0.07, p= 0.09). The severity of bleeding did not correlate with the child’s self-reported QoL in either acute (r= 0.005) or chronic ITP (r=0.03). Parents’ self-assessed QoL did not reflect bleeding severity when their children had either acute (r= 0.03) or chronic ITP (r= 0.006). The parents’ perception of the child’s QoL using a proxy score was also poorly correlated with bleeding severity in acute (r= 0.02) and chronic ITP (r= 0.01). In summary, the bleeding severity score did not correlate with the QoL experienced by either the patient or the family in any setting. These results indicate that many factors in addition to bleeding signs may impact the children and parents, such as anxiety about the disease, length of hospital stay, frequency of visits to the physicians’ office, and medication side effects. These findings suggest that the inclusion of multiple outcome measures enhances the scope of our knowledge and should be used in clinical care and research study design in order to understand the full spectrum of disease impact.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments→French-language works237,207→