Haemophilia testing of young girls in Canada: Describing the current recommendations for factor level and genetic testing and the experiences of Canadian parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is widely acknowledged that haemophilia affects women and girls, yet current testing recommendations for factor level and genetic testing vary and do not universally incorporate updated research. Canadian parents have expressed frustration at inconsistent recommendations and reported instances where delayed testing led to missed diagnosis and preventable bleeding. AIM: Study aim was to explore and describe the practice of haemophilia-related testing of young girls in Canada. METHODS: A mixed methods study was carried out with two populations: (1) Nurses working in haemophilia care completed a survey regarding the current testing recommendations of their Haemophilia Treatment Centre (HTC), (2) Parents of obligate or potential haemophilia carriers completed a structured interview with questions about their family experience of haemophilia and testing decisions for daughters. RESULTS: Twenty-six survey responses were received and showed wide variation in the usual recommendations of Canadian HTCs. Different factor level testing recommendations may be given to obligate and potential carriers despite no difference in bleeding risk. Only a minority of HTCs currently recommend an early baseline factor level (< 10 years) to obligate carriers (27%) or potential carriers (15%). For genetic testing of potential carriers, 70% of HTC would approve a family request for genetic testing of a minor with specific conditions. The majority of parents interviewed felt dissatisfied with their testing experience (58%) and highlighted many issues related to delayed testing recommendations. CONCLUSION: Updated, nationally affirmed testing recommendations are needed that align with research on bleeding in women and girls affected by haemophilia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".