PB0310 Arterial Ischemic Stroke Related to Minor Head Trauma: A Report of Five Pediatric Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In Canada, treatment for hemophilia A has consisted of regular intravenous infusions of clotting factor VIII concentrates to prevent bleeds and maintain joint health.Novel non-factor therapies can be administered subcutaneously and less frequently.Health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) is critical in determining the impact of novel therapies.The Canadian Hemophilia Outcomes-Kids Life Assessment Tool (CHO-KLATv3.0)and Hemophilia Family Impact Tool (H-FIT) are validated tools that measure HR-QoL and the impact of hemophilia on persons with hemophilia (PWH) and caregivers.Aims: To compare HR-QoL of, and burden of caring for, PWH, pre/postswitch to emicizumab.Methods: Persons aged 0-18 with moderate/severe hemophilia A on prophylaxis switching to emicizumab and their caregivers completed questionnaires at product switch (baseline), 3 and 6-months post-switch.PWH aged 7-18 completed the self-report CHO-KLAT and caregivers completed the parent-report CHO-KLAT and H-FIT.Spearman's correlations were calculated to compare self/parent-report CHO-KLAT scores.Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were used to compare CHO-KLAT and H-FIT scores pre/ post-switch.Results: Caregivers (n = 31) and PWH (n = 23) completed the questionnaires.Median age of PWH was 11 years (4-18, 100% male), with most (96.8%)infusing FVIII concentrates >2 times/week pre-switch.Both questionnaires are scored 0-100, with 100 representing best HR-QoL and least family burden, respectively.There was a statistically significant correlation between child and caregiver CHO-KLAT at baseline (ρ = 0.64*, CI = .29-0.84) and 3months (ρ = 0.63*, CI = .11-0.88), indicating similar caregiver-perceived, and child, HR-QoL.CHO-KLAT and HFIT scores improved from pre-to 3-months post-switch but did not achieve statistical significance.From 3-months to 6months, post-switch scores deteriorated slightly. Conclusion(s):Patients reported highest CHO-KLAT scores 3-months postswitch.These findings are supported by HR-QoL literature where a 'leveling out' occurs after adjusting to treatment changes.Further studies are needed to expand on these preliminary results and may be relevant for improving hemophilia care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".