Trends in the utilization and wastage of coagulation factor concentrates: the application of a regional tracking programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada ('Krever Commission', 1997) recommended an active programme of surveillance for all blood products. To describe trends in the utilization of coagulation factor concentrates using a comprehensive factor tracking programme. Between 2001 and 2004 in the region of Southern Ontario, we prospectively tracked all coagulation factor concentrates that were distributed from the national blood supplier, issued by hospitals for inpatient use or for home infusions, infused at hospital facilities or at home and wasted. Discrepancies were reconciled by independent audits. Trends in the utilization of FVIII, FIX and FVIIa concentrates are reported. A total of 466 patients with inherited or acquired bleeding disorders were registered. Utilization of FVIII, FIX and FVIIa increased by an average of 13.7%, 33.2% and 34.2% per year respectively. Most FVIII and FIX infusions were administered at home while most FVIIa infusions were in hospital. The increase in FVIII and FIX usage was attributable to an increase in per-patient use, predominantly for prophylaxis. In total, 1.7% of coagulation factor concentrates was wasted during the study period, at a cost of over 1 million Canadian dollars. Utilization of coagulation factor concentrates increased steadily during the study period. A regional programme to track utilization is feasible and may be used to describe trends, assist planning, and reduce costs by minimizing wastage.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".