MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099568190 · doi:10.1182/blood-2004-06-2283

The safety and efficacy of recombinant human blood coagulation factor IX in previously untreated patients with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B

2004· article· en· W2099568190 on OpenAlexaff
Amy D. Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCity of HopeAflac
KeywordsFactor IXMedicineCoagulationCoagulopathyBlood coagulation factorsRecombinant DNAInternal medicineGastroenterologySurgeryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This international clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of recombinant factor IX (rFIX) in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B (FIX activity, < or = 3 IU/dL). Sixty-three PUPs aged younger than 1 month to 14 years received rFIX (median treatment duration, 37 months; range, 4-64 months). Mean rFIX recovery (0.68 +/- 0.27 IU/dL per IU/kg) remained constant over 5 years and was similar in infants (1 month to < 2 years) and children (2 to < 12 years). Fifty-four PUPs used rFIX (median dose, 62.7 IU/kg per infusion; range, 8.2-292 IU/kg) to treat 997 hemorrhages. Bleeding was well controlled, with 75% of hemorrhages requiring only one rFIX infusion. Response to rFIX was "excellent" or "good" in 94% of cases. Effective hemostasis was achieved in 32 PUPs receiving rFIX for routine prophylaxis, with 91% of prophylaxis responses rated "excellent." rFIX administered for 30 surgical procedures in 23 PUPs achieved hemostasis for all rated procedures. Five patients experienced allergic-type manifestations, including 2 (3%) patients who developed FIX inhibitors (both > 5 BU/dL). rFIX was well tolerated, with no associated thrombotic events or evidence of viral transmission. These data indicate that rFIX is a safe and effective treatment for PUPs with hemophilia B.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207