MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2548040475 · doi:10.1182/blood.v106.11.4049.4049

Delayed Treatment of Bleeding in Patients with Mild Hemophilia Can Very Significantly Affect Overall Need for Therapy.

2005· article· en· W2548040475 sur OpenAlexaff
Dawn Goodyear, M.F. Scully, Marc Kawaja

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemophilia Treatment and Research
Établissements canadiensMemorial University of Newfoundland
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineSurgeryRange of motionAspirinMedical historyArthropathyHemarthrosisAtrial fibrillationFamily historyInternal medicineOsteoarthritis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract AB is a 73 year old Caucasian male who was diagnosed with mild Hemophilia A in 2001. He is part of a large kindred of patients with mild Hemophilia A enrolled in a cohort study. His family history was strongly positive. He was referred at the age of 69 years by a family member. His baseline Factor VIII level was 0.10. AB’s past medical history is characteristic of mild Hemophilia A. As a child he suffered frequently from epistaxis. He bled extensively after lacerations. He had had three significant accidents during his adult years, each of which resulted in massive bleeding and multiple blood transfusions. He had had three dental extractions which resulted in significant bleeding during two of three procedures. He had a hydrocele repair without complications. In 1999, he was extensively investigated for melena with no cause. He had an episode of atrial fibrillation and a possible transient ischemic attack treated with warfarin and aspirin. AB reported significant joint swelling and decreased range of motion. He also reported that he had “a leaky heart valve’. His initial physical examination revealed significant musculoskeletal problems. He had decreased range of motion bilaterally in his hips. He had extensive swelling of both knees and decreased range motion of both ankles. There was a limb length discrepancy of 1.5 cm. AB denied severe joint pain in his lower limbs or the usual symptoms associated with hemophiliac arthropathy. His aPTT was prolonged but he had not had a Factor VIII level previously measured and had never been told that he had Hemophilia A. He received a trial of prophylactic Recombinant Factor VIII three times a week for two months and was referred to an orthopedic surgeon. He received a “Factor First” Identification card recommending he receive 4000 units Recombinant Factor VIII for a major bleed. However, he had great difficulty in accepting the diagnosis and neither he nor his family initially volunteered that he had Hemophilia on his next admission. In April, 2002, AB was admitted to ICU in a community hospital, in Diabetic Ketoacidosis, three weeks after a snowmobile accident. Retrospectively, he reported back pain which he managed with NSAIDS. He was unable to walk prior to his hospitalization. In ICU, he required daily transfusions of PRBC & FFP. Abdominal CT on admission reported a resolving iliopsoas hematomas after an upper gastrointestinal bleed he was transferred to the provincial tertiary care centre. Follow-up CT showed bilateral ilopsoas hemtomas with abscess formation. A CT guided aspiration confirmed the presence of Staphyloccus aureus and a left paravertebral abscess. Follow-up CT showed no improvement. A second CT guided aspiration was performed which showed vertebral body destruction of L3, L4 and L5, discitis and multiple abscess formation. AB underwent L3-S1 fusion with laminectomy and decompression of L3–L4 and L4–L5 with no complications. In total AB received 316,040 units of RF VIII during a 122 day period of hospitalization. In contrast, the other 60 patients enrolled in our study only used 656,515 in a 4-year period. FACTOR VIII PRODUCT USAGE 2001–2004 FACTOR VIII PRODUCT USAGE 2001–2004

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,011

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,254 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHemophilia Treatment and Research→Travaux en français237 207→