Evaluation of the sexual health in people living with hemophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge about sexual health, difficulty with sexual activity and intimacy (sexual difficulty), in people with hemophilia is little understood. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine the prevalence of sexual difficulty in people living with hemophilia (PWH) compared to people with no bleeding disorders (PWNoBD), and to determine factors associated with it. METHODS: This was an analysis of the PROBE study. We recruited individuals who had hemophilia A or B (PWH) and PWNoBD who were 18 years old or older. We calculated proportions of participants with sexual difficulty and odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for sex and age with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: There were 2007 PWH and 1972 PWNoBD. Mean (standard deviation) age was 41 (15) years in PWH and 42 (13) years in PWNoBD. Sexual difficulty was reported in 302 (15.1%) PWH and 79 (4.0%) PWNoBD. The odds of sexual difficulty were significantly higher in PWH (OR 3.82, 95% CI 2.85, 5.11). Among PWH, older age, experiencing acute or chronic pain in the past 12 months, bleeds within the past two weeks, ≥3 spontaneous joint bleeds (past six months), limitation of range of motion of any joints, and any life- or limb-threatening bleeds in the past 12 months were associated with sexual difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual difficulty is more prevalent in people living with hemophilia and associated with markers of disease severity. Sexual health issues should be incorporated in comprehensive hemophilia care, future research, and hemophilia related health policy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".