MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388597698 · doi:10.1016/j.rpth.2023.101205

PB0620 (Mis)Labeling Hemophilia Severity: Exploring the Illness Cognitions of Persons with Hemophilia

2023· article· en· W4388597698 on OpenAlexaff
Roy Khalifé, Lindsay Cowley, Kori A. LaDonna

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hemophilia Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionPsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Since the publication of the 3rd edition of the World Federation of Hemophilia's (WFH) Guidelines for the Management of Hemophilia in August 2020, the WFH has been implementing a Living Guidelines Model (LGM) to ensure recommendations are kept relevant.Aims: The aim of the WFH LGM is to provide timely updates to the recommendations in the 3rd edition of the WFH Guidelines by updating individual recommendations when new evidence becomes available.Methods: The LGM will be implemented by multi-disciplinary Steering Committee (SC), Guidelines Oversight Committee (GOC) and topic-specific Working Groups (WG).All groups are composed of healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals and people with hemophilia/caregivers, with global representation.Individual recommendations will be updated on a prioritization and rotational basis, established by the SC.Systematic reviews of the literature will be conducted with medical librarians, systematic reviewers, methodologists, and guideline and content experts.The WG will update recommendations if there is sufficient new evidence.All updates will be posted on the WFH website and in the Haemophilia Journal.Results: The SC established the first topic area to update will be gene therapy for hemophilia.The Working Group is being assembled and will include 32 members composed of healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals and people with hemophilia/caregivers, with the latter group making up 25% of the group.Conflicts of Interest for each member will be reviewed by the GOC prior to approval as a member of the WG.PICOs will be developed in the first quarter of 2023.Conclusion(s): Developing and updating WFH recommendations using the LGM allows for a systematic prioritization of topics and evidence synthesis, with the unit of update as individual recommendations rather than chapters.This results in a more efficient, responsive process reflecting the latest evidence, and leads to updated recommendations earlier than the traditional approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.218
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch and Practice in Thrombosis and HaemostasisSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207