Risk factors for inhibitor formation in haemophilia: a prevalent case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhibitor formation is a major complication of haemophilia treatment. In a prevalent case-control study, we evaluated blood product exposure, genotype and HLA type on haemophilia A inhibitor formation. Product exposure was extracted from medical records. Genotype was determined on stored DNA samples by detection of virtually all mutations-SSCP (DOVAM-S) and subcycling PCR. HLA typing was performed by PCR amplification and exonuclease-released fluorescence. Cases experienced higher intensity factor, 455 vs. 200 U per exposure, P < 0.005, more frequent central nervous system (CNS) bleeding, seven of 20 (35.0%) vs. one of 57 (1.7%), P = 0.001 and more commonly from inhibitor families, seven of 20 (35.0%) vs. zero of 57 (0%), P < 0.001, and African-American, 12 of 63 (19.0%) vs. six of 117 (5.1%), P = 0.015. Among the latter, CNS bleeding was more commonly the initial bleed, 60% vs. 0%, P < 0.001, and survival was shorter, 14 vs. 38 yr, P = 0.025. Inhibitor formation was uncommon in those with missense mutations, two of 65 (3.1%) vs. 31 of 119 (26.0%), P = 0.008, and unrelated to factor VIII immunogenic epitope, P = 0.388, or HLA type, P > 0.100. Genotype was not associated with race. Time to immune tolerance was shorter for titres <120 vs. > or = 120 BU/mL, six vs. 16 months, P < 0.01, but unaffected by tolerizing dose regimen, P > 0.50. Inhibitor formation is associated with high intensity product exposure, CNS bleeding, African-American race and low frequency of missense mutations. The ideal time to initiate prophylaxis to reduce CNS bleeding and inhibitor formation will require prospective studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".