Porcine factor VIII provides clinical benefit to patients with high levels of inhibitors to human and porcine factor VIII
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of an inhibitor against Factor VIII is an important complication of haemophilia and occurs in approximately 31% of patients [1]. Despite various approaches to their management, the presence of these inhibitors remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Inhibitors may be low level [<5 Bethesda Units (BU)] or high level [>10 BU]. Low-level inhibitors usually remain low and do not respond to administered factor VIII with a rise of the inhibitor titre; high-level inhibitors, in contrast, are characterized by a rapid rise in titre following treatment with factor VIII. Modalities of treatment of acute bleeding episodes in patients with inhibitors include 'overcoming' the inhibitor with very large doses of factor VIII, 'bypassing' the inhibitor blockade with products such as activated prothrombin complex concentrates or recombinant factor VIIa, 'removing' the inhibitor by plasmapheresis or immunoabsorption and 'repressing' it with immunosuppressive drugs and immune tolerance induction. An alternative approach is to use a porcine factor VIII concentrate which does not cross-react with the human factor VIII inhibitor. Following treatment with porcine factor VIII, functional factor VIII can be detected and the therapeutic levels correlate with cessation of bleeding. The use of porcine factor VIII may, however, result in the development of antiporcine factor VIII antibodies, limiting its use. Experience in patients with high-titre inhibitors indicates that porcine factor VIII therapy could be used in the presence of factor VIII inhibitors [2-11], including inhibitors to porcine factor VIII [5,7], and that haemostasis may be obtained in the absence of detectable levels of circulating factor VIII [7,11].
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".