Avaliação da qualidade de vida do paciente hemofílico infantil e adolescente
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Avaliar a qualidade de vida do paciente hemofílico infantil e adolescente em um Centro de Hematologia e Hemoterapia do Estado do Piauí. Métodos: O estudo é de natureza descritiva, transversal e com enfoque quantitativo, com amostra de 11 pacientes, realizado em um Centro de Hematologia e Hemoterapia do Estado do Piauí, que responderam o questionário “Canadian Haemophilia Outcomes –Kids life Assesment Tool (CHO-KLAT)”. A aplicação do questionário se deu uma única vez aos pacientes hemofílicos infantis e adolescentes enquadrados na faixa etária de 7-17 anos que assinaram o termo de assentimento. Resultados: As três questões que obtiveram maiores valores auto relatados pelos pacientes foram nessa ordem: qualidade do tratamento, satisfação consigo mesmo e hábito de relatar a família ao se machucar; as três questões que obtiveram menores valores foram: autonomia, capacidade de lidar com ansiedade/medo e relacionamento com a família e o medo social. Conclusão: De modo geral, os hemofílicos referem ser satisfeitos consigo mesmo e que, o tratamento oferecido tem sido satisfatório, no entanto, ainda persistem alguns desafios para que haja uma melhoria na qualidade de vida desses pacientes.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".