Identifying Children with HEreditary Coagulation disorders (iCHEC): a protocol for a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is challenging to obtain a reliable bleeding history in children who are referred for a suspected inherited bleeding disorder. Bleeding symptoms may be subtle as children face fewer haemostatic challenges compared with adults. In order to standardise bleeding histories, questionnaires have been developed, called bleeding assessment tools (BATs). Although it has been shown that high bleeding scores are associated with the presence of a mucocutaneous bleeding disorder, these BATs lack sensitivity, efficiency and flexibility in the paediatric setting. We developed a new BAT (the iCHEC (identifying Children with HEreditary Coagulation disorders) BAT) to improve on these characteristics. We aim to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the iCHEC BAT as a screening tool for children who are suspected for having a bleeding disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective cohort study. Children (age 0-18 years) suspected for a bleeding disorder who present at tertiary haematology clinics, and/or their parents/guardians, will be asked to complete the iCHEC BAT. Sensitivity was increased by inclusion of paediatric-specific bleeding symptoms and novel qualitative questions per bleeding symptom. Efficiency was improved by developing a self-administered (online) version of the questionnaire. Flexibility for changes in the bleeding phenotype of developing children was improved by including questions that define when the bleeding symptoms occurred in the past. The diagnostic accuracy of the specific bleeding items will be evaluated by receiver operator characteristic curves, using classification based on the results from laboratory assessment as the reference standard. Analysis of the discriminative power of individual bleeding symptoms will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the medical ethics committees of all participating centres in the Netherlands, Canada and the UK. All paediatric subjects and/or their parents/guardians will provide written informed consent. Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.
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 | 0.034 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.006 |
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".