A systematic approach to controlling problem bleeds in patients with severe congenital haemophilia A and high‐titre inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The presence of inhibitory antibodies to clotting factors complicates the treatment of bleeding in haemophilia patients. For patients with high-titre inhibitors, bypassing agents are essential to haemostatic management. To determine optimal treatment practices, an international panel of physicians convened to develop a systematic treatment approach for problem bleeds (i.e. bleeds that are unresponsive to initial therapy with a single agent within a reasonable amount of time) in haemophilia patients with inhibitors. AIM: The goal of this panel was to develop a consensus algorithm that would aid physicians in considering a variety of treatment approaches to optimize patient care by preventing extensive therapy with inadequate treatments that may lead to suboptimal patient outcomes and unnecessary costs. METHODS: Consensus opinions were analyzed for clinical preferences at different time periods, depending on patient response to treatment. Decision-making points were defined based on the type of bleed: every 8-12 h for the first 24 h, then every 24 h thereafter for limb-threatening bleeds; every 2-4 h for 2-7 days for life-threatening bleeds. RESULTS: The resultant consensus guidelines provide a generalized methodology to guide the treatment of problem bleeds in patients with severe haemophilia A and inhibitors, and emphasize changing treatment at the first sign of an inadequate haemostatic response. The treatment algorithms apply to both paediatric and adult patients, although the differences between the two groups were reviewed. CONCLUSION: These guidelines are focused on optimising the timing of treatment decisions, which may lead to faster responses and improved outcomes.
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 | 0.018 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".