MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WFH: Closing the global gap – achieving optimal care

2012· article· en· W1545675476 on OpenAlexaff
Mark W. Skinner

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemophilia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hemophilia Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHaemophiliaIntensive care medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For 50 years, the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) has been working globally to close the gap in care and to achieve Treatment for All patients, men and women, with haemophilia and other inherited bleeding disorders, regardless of where they might live. The WFH estimates that more than one in 1000 men and women has a bleeding disorder equating to 6,900,000 worldwide. To close the gap in care between developed and developing nations a continued focus on the successful strategies deployed heretofore will be required. However, in response to the rapid advances in treatment and emerging therapeutic advances on the horizon it will also require fresh approaches and renewed strategic thinking. It is difficult to predict what each therapeutic advance on the horizon will mean for the future, but there is no doubt that we are in a golden age of research and development, which has the prospect of revolutionizing treatment once again. An improved understanding of "optimal" treatment is fundamental to the continued evolution of global care. The challenges of answering government and payer demands for evidence-based medicine, and cost justification for the introduction and enhancement of treatment, are ever-present and growing. To sustain and improve care it is critical to build the body of outcome data for individual patients, within haemophilia treatment centers (HTCs), nationally, regionally and globally. Emerging therapeutic advances (longer half-life therapies and gene transfer) should not be justified or brought to market based only on the notion that they will be economically more affordable, although that may be the case, but rather more importantly that they will be therapeutically more advantageous. Improvements in treatment adherence, reductions in bleeding frequency (including microhemorrhages), better management of trough levels, and improved health outcomes (including quality of life) should be the foremost considerations. As part of a new WFH strategic plan (2012-2014) the WFH has identified several key initiatives for particular emphasis - continuation of the Global Alliance for Progress (GAP) program, a new initiative to address underserved countries and regions (The Cornerstone Initiative), enhancing health outcomes research and analysis, and a new research mentorship program. Despite our progress to date in closing the global gap in care, our work is not complete. Too many patients remain undiagnosed and too few receive adequate treatment. This paper will also discuss historical, present and future challenges and opportunities to close the gap in care and achieve Treatment for All.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations103
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaemophiliaSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207