Clotting factor concentrate switching and inhibitor development in hemophilia A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of alloantibodies or inhibitors is the most serious complication a patient with severe hemophilia can experience from treatment with clotting factor concentrates. Although common in previously untreated patients, inhibitor development is rare in multiply exposed, well-tolerized patients. There has been a nonevidence-based reluctance to change concentrate because of a perceived greater inhibitor risk after the switch, even though most patients are now likely to be using a concentrate on which they did not begin. Inhibitors in previously treated patients are observed in approximately 2 per 1000 patient/years, which makes it difficult to study and compare rates among different products. Because the baseline inhibitor risk in previously treated patients may vary over time, it is important to compare the risk in patients switching to a new product with that in a parallel control group of nonswitching patients or within a case-controlled study. The study designs imposed by regulators are suboptimal in detecting immunogenicity signals. The issue of immunogenicity of new products is likely to gain more relevance in the near future, with a call for effective postmarketing surveillance studies for all of the new engineered factor VIII concentrates with prolonged half-lives that are likely to enter clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".