Retrospective audit of a continuous infusion protocol for haemophilia A at a single haemophilia treatment centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous infusion (CI) of factor concentrates has been suggested to decrease the risk of bleeding and reduce cost in the treatment of bleeding disorders. Concerns have also been raised regarding stability and sterility of products administered by CI, the risk of local thrombophlebitis and an association with the development of an inhibitor in mild haemophilia. A retrospective chart review was conducted to investigate a CI protocol regarding product use, maintenance of FVIII levels and the frequency of complications including inhibitor development. Twelve patients with haemophilia A received recombinant factor VIII by CI a total of 18 times between April 1998 and September 2003. Ages ranged from 4 months to 75 years and indications for treatment included severe bleeds and surgical prophylaxis. The protocol which was audited required a bolus of 50 U kg(-1) of FVIII followed by CI at an initial rate of 4 U kg(-1) hr(-1). All infusions were administered by i.v. infusion after diluting the reconstituted concentrate in saline. There were no documented cases of significant bleeding, adverse reactions, thrombophlebitis or infection. Two mild haemophilia A patients developed a low titre inhibitor after receiving CI. It is not clear in either case that CI was the main contributing factor. Our CI protocol will now be modified to use less product, aiming for more cost-effectiveness.
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 | 0.021 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".