The Sickle Cell Disease Functional Assessment (SCD-FA) tool: a feasibility pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The life expectancy for individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD) has greatly increased over the last 50 years. Adults with SCD experience multiple complications such as cardiopulmonary disease, strokes, and avascular necrosis that lead to limitations that geriatric populations often experience. There are no dedicated instruments to measure functional decline and functional age to determine risk of future adverse outcomes in older adults with SCD. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of performing the Sickle Cell Disease Functional Assessment (SCD-FA). METHODS: We enrolled 40 adults with SCD (20 younger adults aged 18-49 years as a comparison group and 20 older adults aged 50 years and older) in a single-center prospective cohort study. Participants were recruited from a comprehensive sickle cell clinic in an academic center in the southeastern United States. We included measures validated in an oncology geriatric assessment enriched with additional physical performance measures: usual gait speed, seated grip strength, Timed Up and Go, six-minute walk test, and 30-second chair stand. We also included an additional cognitive measure, which was the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and additional patient-reported measures at the intersection of sickle cell disease and geriatrics. The primary outcome was the proportion completing the assessment. Secondary outcomes were the proportion consenting, duration of the assessment, acceptability, and adverse events. RESULTS: Eighty percent (44/55) of individuals approached consented, 91% (40/44) completed the SCD-FA in its entirety, and the median duration was 89 min (IQR 80-98). There were no identified adverse events. On the acceptability survey, 95% (38/40) reported the length as appropriate, 2.5% (1/40) reported a question as upsetting, and 5% (2/40) reported portions as difficult. Exploratory analyses of physical function showed 63% (25/40) had a slow usual gait speed (< 1.2 m/s). CONCLUSION: The SCD-FA is feasible, acceptable, and safe and physical performance tests identified functional impairments in adults with SCD. These findings will inform the next phase of the study where we will assess the validity of the SCD-FA to predict patient-important outcomes in a larger sample of adults with SCD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".