First analysis of 10‐year trends in national factor concentrates usage in haemophilia: data from <scp>CHARMS</scp>, the Canadian Hemophilia Assessment and Resource Management System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Hemophilia Assessment and Resource Management System (CHARMS) tracks factor concentrates (FC) from the sole suppliers, Canadian Blood Services (CBS) and Hema-Quebec (HQ), to hospitals and to patients' homes. Patients FC infusion data are entered into CHARMS at Canadian Hemophilia Treatment Centres (HTCs) then exported to the national database (CentrePoint). From 2000 to 2009, 2260 registered haemophilia A or B patients received FVIII (1,009,097,765 IU) and FIX (272,406,859 IU). Over 91% of FVIII and over 84% of FIX was infused at home. Utilization of FVIII progressively increased; this was accounted for by an increase in the number of patients treated (r = 0.97; P < 0.001), there being a linear relationship between the increase in utilization and the increase in number of patients treated (P < 0.001). There was also a correlation with the annual amount used per patient (r = 0.95; P < 0.001). Utilization of FIX did not increase over time. The highest proportional utilization of both FVIII and FIX was for prophylaxis, and this proportion progressively increased being, in year 10 (2009), 77% and 66% for FVIII and FIX respectively. The proportion used for bleeding remained steady; in year 10 that proportion was 14% for FVIII and 26% for FIX, the use per patient for bleeding decreasing. The HTC-based CHARMS tracking system is essential, in Canada, for analysing indications for infusion, for predicting utilization and planning for future needs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".