Joint Aspiration for Acute Hemarthrosis in Children Receiving Factor VIII Prophylaxis for Severe Hemophilia: 11-year Safety Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were (1) to document the prevalence of acute hemarthrosis in a cohort of 46 boys with severe hemophilia A receiving full primary prophylaxis in Western Australia (WA), and (2) to investigate the safety of the WA protocol over 11 years for management of hemarthrosis. METHODS: Case review. The WA protocol involves a pediatric rheumatologist washing out all acute hemarthrosis of large joints promptly and then instilling intraarticular (IA) corticosteroids. RESULTS: This study showed that joint bleeds occurred in 22 boys of 46 (47.8%). In over 11 years, 84 washouts were performed on 32 joints in 22 boys. No adverse events occurred. Fifteen of 22 boys had normal joints with a Hemophilic Joint Health Score = 0. Fifteen boys who had had all hemarthrosis washed out had clinically normal joints (100%). Seven boys had sustained joint damage prior to full instigation of the protocol, each having had documented hemarthrosis without aspiration. Parents needed to understand that joint bleeds constituted an emergency. CONCLUSION: Of our cohort, 47.8% of patients with severe hemophilia receiving prophylaxis developed joint bleeding. The WA protocol is safe. There is evidence suggesting joint outcomes of hemophilic patients having hemarthrosis despite factor VIII prophylaxis may be much improved if there is access to a center using a procedure similar to the WA protocol.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".