MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404507227 · doi:10.46439/hematol.3.022

Assessment of quality of life in people living with hemophilia: A case study of Yaoundé Hemophilia Treatment Centre, Cameroon

2024· article· en· W4404507227 on OpenAlexaff
Aurélien Chendjou Kamela, Annick Ndoumba, Verdiane Mabopda, Kevin Romuald Nana Noumtchue, Dora Mbanya, Claude Tayou Tagny

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Hematology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsQuality of life (healthcare)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Hemophilia is a sex-linked bleeding disorder resulting from deficiencies in coagulation factors, predominantly affecting individuals in developing countries. This study aims to assess the quality of life (QoL) of people living with hemophilia (PLWH) at the Yaoundé Hemophilia Treatment Centre (HTC), as no prior studies have been conducted in Cameroon. Methodology: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2022 to May 2022. We recruited 43 male patients with confirmed hemophilia, utilizing the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-Y questionnaires to evaluate QoL. Data were analyzed using R software, with statistical significance set at p <0.05. Results: The mean age of participants was 17.3 years. Hemophilia A was prevalent in 88.4% of cases, with a mean age at diagnosis of 4.9 years. Most patients (67.4%) received on-demand treatment, and the primary complaint was joint pain. The overall EQ-5D utility score was 0.72, indicating moderate QoL, with VAS scores of 67.6 for both adults and children. Conclusion: The QoL of PLWH at the Yaoundé HTC is moderate according to the Blom cut-off scale.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Hematology→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→