Differences and Barriers of Haitian and Haitian Immigrant Children with Sickle Cell Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haitians have a high incidence of sickle cell disease (SCD), but limited healthcare resources. The Comparative Study of Children in Haiti and Miami with Sickle Cell Disease (CSHSCD) (NIH R01HL149121) assessed clinical and social characteristics of children of Haitian immigrants and African American controls and compared them with Haitian children living in Haiti. We hypothesized that there would be significant differences and that differences in the Haitian American group may be related to time since immigrating. For this report, baseline characteristics of a total of 255 children (mean age 38 months; 204 Haitians, 32 Haitian American and 19 African American) were compared as well as parental self-reported barriers to care and acculturation. Children with hemoglobin SS in Miami of either African American or Haitian ethnicities were more likely receiving hydroxyurea (p<0.001) and less likely have experienced a vaso-occlusive crisis (p<0.001) compared to children in Haiti. Being in the United States over 10 years was associated acculturation and better English proficiency. Children in Haiti were more anemic, more likely to be malnourished, and to have incomplete pneumococcal conjugate vaccinations. Haitian families faced issues affording treatment. Longer length of stay in the United States was associated with appropriate pneumococcal vaccination, higher parental education, and better English competency. Haitians living in Haiti were at a significant disadvantage in every aspect of care, requiring ongoing assistance. We encourage global partnerships to decrease barriers to care in disadvantaged populations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".