The use of prophylaxis in 2663 children and adults with haemophilia: results of the 2006 Canadian national haemophilia prophylaxis survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prophylaxis is standard of care for boys with severe haemophilia A. Indications for prophylaxis in adulthood, non-severe haemophilia A, haemophilia B and haemophilia with inhibitors are less well defined. This survey, conducted in 2006, aimed to describe prophylaxis use in patients of all ages and severities with haemophilia A or haemophilia B in Canada. Data on 2663 individuals (2161 haemophilia A; 502 haemophilia B), including 78 inhibitor-positive patients, were returned by 22/25 Canadian haemophilia treatment centres. This represented 98% of the Canadian haemophilia population. Frequency of prophylaxis use, defined as infusion of factor VIII/IX concentrate at least once weekly for >/=45 weeks of the year, was highest in individuals with severe haemophilia A (69%). It was lower in individuals with severe haemophilia B (32%), moderate haemophilia A (18%) or B (5%) and mild haemophilia A (1%) or B (1%). Among individuals with severe haemophilia A, the frequency of prophylaxis use was 84% in children (</=18 years) and 55% in adults (>18 years). Thirteen per cent of inhibitor-positive individuals were receiving prophylaxis with bypassing agents. Comparison with data obtained from a 2002 Canadian survey showed a greater use of prophylaxis in children </=5 years of age with severe haemophilia A (73% vs. 49%). Prophylaxis is no longer confined to children with severe haemophilia A, but is used in a significant proportion of adults with severe haemophilia A and individuals with severe haemophilia B or moderate haemophilia A. Prophylaxis is being started earlier in boys with severe haemophilia A.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".