ALEXITHYMIA IN PATIENTS WITH HAEMOPHILIA. COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH THE HEALTHY POPULATIONALEXITHYMIA IN PATIENTS WITH HAEMOPHILIA. COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH THE HEALTHY POPULATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Haemophilia is “a genetic transmitted disorder”, it belongs to the category of rare diseases, illnesses that face devastating and incapacitating developments affecting each person beyond physical problems. Material and method. 200 subjects were part of the study, they were divided into two equal groups (patients with hemophilia A and B – 50% and healthy population – 50%), aged between 16 and 45 years. We used the medical history and measuring alexithymia with TAS-20 (Toronto Alexithymia Scale). Results. The study conducted shows that there are statistically significant differences between hemophiliacs and non-hemophiliacs, hemophiliacs have higher levels of alexithymia compared to non-hemophiliacs. Conclusions. The overall level of alexithymia was higher in patients with haemophilia than the other groups, including three subscales DIF (difficulty identifying emotions), DDF (difficulty in describing feelings) and EOT (externally oriented thinking).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".