Prevention and treatment of musculoskeletal disease in the haemophilia population: role of prophylaxis and synovectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prophylaxis is defined as primary (started before the onset of joint damage) or secondary (started after the onset of joint damage). The aim of primary prophylaxis is to prevent recurrent bleeding into joints and the development of chronic arthropathy in later life. When started early, and at most after two joint bleeds, the result is predictably excellent if there is compliance with the primary prophylaxis regimen. In order to decrease the need for central venous access devices to assure reliable venous access, a number of centres start primary prophylaxis with once weekly infusions with dose-escalation based on frequency of joint bleeding. A major unanswered question is whether primary prophylaxis can be safely discontinued in adolescents/young adults and if so, when. A promising predictor for the milder bleeding phenotype in persons with severe haemophilia is a later onset of joint bleeding. Once joint damage has occurred as a result of recurrent bleeding, secondary prophylaxis can only retard, but not prevent, ongoing joint damage. Other strategies to decrease recurrent bleeding from target joints include surgical synovectomy (ideally performed using an arthroscopic technique), radionuclide synovectomy and chemical synovectomy. These interventions have very good outcomes when performed by an experienced team. Given the very high cost of factor concentrates required for programmes of prophylaxis prospective studies that document benefits to the child and family, e.g. quality of life are to be encouraged.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".