Effect of the Factor V Leiden Mutation on the Clinical Expression of Severe Hemophilia A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine whether the factor V Leiden mutation is associated with decreased bleeding in individuals with severe hemophilia A, factor concentrate utilization, maximum annual number of bleeding episodes, and the prevalence of hemophilic arthropathy between carriers and non-carriers of the factor V Leiden mutation were compared. Heterozygosity for the factor V Leiden mutation was found in 6 of 137 subjects (4.4%). Carriers of the factor V Leiden mutation utilized less factor concentrate (geometric mean: 310 vs. 1185 units/kg/year) and had fewer bleeding episodes than non-carriers (proportion with 10 or fewer bleeding episodes in their worst year: 50 vs. 11%). However, the factor V Leiden mutation was not associated with the absence of arthropathy. The intron 22 inversion mutation of the factor VIII gene was tested for in a subgroup of 80 subjects, but it was not found to be a significant variable for any of the bleeding endpoints. The results of this small study are consistent with the hypothesis that the factor V Leiden mutation imparts a protective effect; however, a larger confirmatory study in which the factor VIII molecular defects can be controlled for is needed. Furthermore, most severe hemophiliacs who used fewer than 200 units/kg/year of factor concentrate or who had experienced 10 or fewer bleeding episodes per year did not carry the factor V Leiden mutation, suggesting that the proportion of severe hemophiliacs whose mild clinical course can be attributed to the factor V Leiden mutation is small.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".