The Effects of Haemophilia on the Postural Control of Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A small number of studies have reported that children and adults with haemophilia have impaired balance control and show faster body sway during upright stance than healthy individuals. A decrease of somatosensory information due to multiple bleedings has been suggested to explain this difference. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine if haemophilia is related to a decreased balance control under altered visual and proprioceptive conditions in male adolescents. Postural sway of healthy (n = 12, Age = 14.8 ± 1.4 years; BMI = 19.8 ± 1.8 kg/m2) and haemophiliac (n = 8, Age = 15.0 ± 1.4 years; BMI = 20.4 ± 3.2 kg/m2) male adolescents was measured with a force platform for normal quiet stance lasting 30 s with open and closed eyes on hard and foam floor conditions. The ANOVA revealed a significant Group × Vision × Proprioception (F(1,18) = 5.861, p < 0.05) interaction. Both groups showed an increased centre of pressure (COP) speed when vision and proprioception are challenged. Planned comparisons revealed that the haemophiliac group oscillated at a faster COP speed than the healthy group when vision is altered in hard floor (1.11 ± 0.27 versus 0.76 ± 0.19 cm/s; p < 0.05) and foam floor (6.83 ± 1.68 versus 4.89 ± 1.05 cm/s; p < 0.01) conditions. More important, haemophiliac adolescents were more disturbed by the proprioceptive condition and had a significantly higher COP speed on the foam even if vision is available (3.02 ± 0.47 versus 2.34 ± 0.45 cm/s; p < 0.05) compared to the healthy adolescents. In conclusion, haemophilia clearly affects postural control in altered sensory conditions. Our results suggest that haemophilia has a negative impact on the capacity of male adolescents to adequately use proprioceptive information for posture control.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".