Healthcare Provider Perceptions of Clinically Important Bleeding in Hematological Malignancies: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Acute leukemia (AL) is a rapidly progressive disease. AL and induction chemotherapy lead to an increased risk of bleeding. Bleeding is measured in clinical trials using the World Health Organization (WHO) bleeding scale. The scale defines a clinically significant bleed as a composite outcome of a grade 2 bleed or higher. The use of this composite outcome is problematic, as it does not distinguish minor bleeds, signs or symptoms of bleeding, does not consider the total burden of bleeding and lacks input from healthcare providers and patients. Given this, our objective was to identify healthcare providers' perspectives on the components of clinically important bleeding in AL patients. Methods: Using qualitative description, we conducted 19 interviews with physicians (n=12), nurses (n=3), and nurse practitioners (n=4) who provide care to AL patients undergoing induction chemotherapy in Canada. Participants were recruited from professional organizations, networks, and social media. Interview data were analyzed using an inductive approach for conventional content analysis. Results: Healthcare providers identified various factors that were considered to determine the significance or severity of a bleed. Participants assessed factors including the location and amount of blood, the management strategy, the need for intervention, multiple bleeds, changes in vital signs and other patient-specific factors. We developed three categories to differentiate bleeds: those with clinical significance, those with potential for clinical significance, and those without clinical significance. Conclusion: Healthcare providers considered various characteristics when determining the significance and or severity of a bleed. These characteristics were assessed in conjunction with other factors such as the patient's medical condition, bleeding history, and clinical intuition to predict the likelihood of a serious bleed. Future research should explore AL patients’ perspectives of clinically important bleeding to create a definition that is informed by evidence, clinicians, and patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 teacher head, 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".