Incidence and risk factors for inhibitor development in previously untreated severe haemophilia A patients born between 2005 and 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the inhibitor development (ID) in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe haemophilia A (FVIII ≤ 0.01 IU mL(-1) ). All Canadian Haemophilia Treatment Centres completed a questionnaire on patients born between September 2005 and August 2010 and followed for up to 7 years. Eligible patients had at least 20 exposure days (ED) or had developed an inhibitor. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for risk factors to develop an inhibitor were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. A total of 99 haemophilia A PUPs were studied. Thirty-four (34%) developed an inhibitor (24/34 of high titre). Inhibitors developed in 25/63 (40%) patients with a high-risk mutation. ID was most frequent in Aboriginals (86%). Dose intensity (IU kg(-1) day(-1) X number of ED) at first exposure to factor VIII (FVIII) was associated with a crude OR increase of 1.10 (95% CI: 0.99-1.23) with each increase of 100 dose-intensity units. Haemarthrosis and intracranial bleeding as the indication for first exposure to FVIII concentrate were associated with a crude OR for ID of 7.63 (95% CI: 2.14-27.17) and 5.08 (95% CI: 1.11-23.31) respectively. ID according to FVIII concentrate used was: Advate (®) 18/50 (36%), Kogenate FS(®) or Helixate FS(®) 15/36 (42%), Wilate(®) 0/11 and Xyntha(®) 1/2. In multivariate analysis, Aboriginal ethnicity (OR = 11.69; 95% CI: 1.11-122.86) and haemarthrosis (OR = 4.49; 95% CI: 1.08-18.61) were statistically significant. The cumulative incidence of ID in severe haemophilia A PUPs was 34% and varied according to ethnicity, type of bleeding at first ED, type of FVIII product and dose intensity at first exposure.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".