Hemophilia and sexual health: results from the HERO and B-HERO-S studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greig Blamey,1 Cathy Buranahirun,2 Andrea Buzzi,3 David L Cooper,4 Susan Cutter,5 Sue Geraghty,6 Hossam Saad,4 Renchi Yang71Physiotherapy Department, Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; 2Children’s Center for Cancer and Blood Diseases, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California/Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 3Fondazione Paracelso, Milan, Italy; 4Novo Nordisk Inc., Plainsboro, NJ, USA; 5Penn Comprehensive Hemophilia and Thrombosis Program, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 6University of Colorado Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center-Retired, Denver, CO, USA; 7Tianjin Hemophilia Center, Tianjin, People’s Republic of ChinaBackground: Sexual health plays a primary role in quality of life (QoL) for many people, including those with hemophilia; however, there is little information available about sexual relationships and satisfaction in patients with hemophilia.Methods: To address this issue, the Hemophilia Experiences, Results and Opportunities (HERO) and the Bridging Hemophilia B Experiences, Results and Opportunities into Solutions (B-HERO-S) studies included questions from the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ).Results: Although these data were not statistically analyzed for comparisons between the 3 populations (HERO, HERO US only, and B-HERO-S), in general, participants in the HERO survey appeared to be more satisfied with their sexual relationship than participants in the B-HERO-S survey. In addition, many patients, especially those outside the United States, reported that they had not discussed sexual health with their doctor or other members of the hemophilia treatment center team. While the topic of sexual health has been infrequently explored in men with hemophilia, this is the first time it has been investigated in women with hemophilia.Conclusion: The results of these studies demonstrate that the impact of hemophilia extends to intimacy and suggest the need for large-scale studies in additional countries to explore further the factors associated with sexual health issues in people with hemophilia.Keywords: Male Sexual Health Questionnaire, quality of life, sexual relationships
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".