A survey of factor prophylaxis in boys with haemophilia followed in North American haemophilia treatment centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey was conducted in 2002 to determine the pattern of factor prophylaxis use in boys <or=18 years of age with haemophilia followed in North American treatment centres. Responses were obtained from 4553 cases (74% haemophilia A, 26% haemophilia B). The frequency of prophylaxis, defined as factor infusion greater than or equal to once per week for >or=45 weeks per year, was significantly higher for haemophilia A vs. haemophilia B cases (51% vs. 32%, P< 0.0001), and for boys with severe haemophilia A living in Canada vs. the USA (77% vs. 47%, P< 0.0001). Use of full-dose prophylaxis, defined as the infusion of 25-40 IU kg(-1) of factor VIII on alternate days (minimum three times per week) or 25-40 IU kg(-1) of factor IX twice weekly, was similar for boys <or=5 years of age in both Canada and the USA (30% and 33% haemophilia A and 35% and 13% haemophilia B). Reasons for initiating prophylaxis included a history of joint bleeding (88%) and age <or=2 years (23%). For prophylaxis triggered by joint bleeding, 38% of haemophilia treatment centres indicated that they would initiate prophylaxis after the first joint bleed and 66% after a history of target joint bleeding, defined most frequently as 2-4 bleeds over a 3-6 consecutive month period. A central venous line was used to ensure easy venous access for full-dose prophylaxis therapy in 80% of boys <or=5 years of age. These data offer a basis for projecting long-term factor concentrate needs for persons with haemophilia living in North America.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".