Haemophilia care in China: achievements of a decade of World Federation of Hemophilia treatment centre twinning activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) began its involvement in China in 1993, supporting Chinese haemophilia centre twinning programmes in 1997. Although only three Chinese centres were in a twinning relationship (Tianjin/Calgary 1997-2004, Guangzhou/Ottawa 2000-2006, Shanghai/Ottawa, Calgary 2002-2007), WFH helped establish a collaborative network of six Chinese centres (Tianjin, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Beijing, Hefei, Jinan) in 2004. These network centres, in collaboration with haemophilia patients, shared and coordinated several successful ongoing priority projects (Registry, Nursing, Laboratory Diagnosis, Physiotherapy and Prophylaxis). A number of physicians, nurses and technologists have received WFH fellowships for training internationally. They are becoming haemophilia-care leaders and are key personnel working towards comprehensive care in China. National and regional workshops/conferences in addition to educational material development have been successful in reaching out to healthcare professionals and persons with haemophilia across the country. Key elements of success include the enthusiasm and commitment of the Chinese professionals and patient leaders in their desire to advance haemophilia care and their commitment to work collaboratively in a coordinated manner. They are beginning to gain national and international recognition and are launching outreach education and care programmes to cover other parts of China. WFH is now transitioning support in China from a twinning program to country programme (Global Alliance for Progress). Haemophilia work in China is still in the beginning, but there is now a solid foundation for future progress.
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 | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".