Non‐severe haemophilia: Is it benign? – Insights from the PROBE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on the impact of haemophilia on health status and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in people with non-severe (mild and moderate) haemophilia. AIM: To evaluate the health status of people living with mild or moderate haemophilia. METHODS: Data on respondents with no bleeding disorder (NoBD), mild and moderate haemophilia patients were drawn from the PROBE study. Respondents were enrolled using network patient organizations. This analysis was performed as a cross-sectional study. Primary outcomes were reported bleeding, acute and chronic pain, activities of daily living and HRQL. RESULTS: A total of 862 respondents with NoBD (n = 173), mild (n = 102) and moderate (n = 134) haemophilia were eligible, with a median age of 33, 42 and 43, respectively. In relation to haemophilia-related sequalae, 53% of male and 29% of female patients with mild and 83% of males with moderate haemophilia had more than 2-3 bleeds in the last 12 months. Reporting of acute and chronic pain is less in those with NoBD compared to the mild and moderate cohorts for both genders. Multivariate analysis demonstrates significant reductions in quality of life using VAS, EQ-5D-5L and PROBE for males with mild and moderate haemophilia (P ≤ .001) with only PROBE indicating a significant reduction for females with mild (P = .002). CONCLUSION: People affected by mild or moderate haemophilia report a significant HRQL impact due to haemophilia-related bleeding. Future research is needed to identify the optimal care management of patients with mild and moderate haemophilia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".