Patterns of tertiary prophylaxis in <scp>C</scp>anadian adults with severe and moderately severe haemophilia <scp>B</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a young age patients with severe and moderately severe FIX deficiency (haemophilia B) can experience spontaneous or traumatic bleeding and joint destruction may result. The use of coagulation factor IX concentrate to prevent anticipated bleeding, as primary or secondary prophylaxis, has become a common and recommended practice in children. The current practice of using tertiary prophylaxis, in the presence of established joint arthropathy, in adults with haemophilia B is not well characterized. This observational study was conducted to gain a better understanding of the recent Canadian experience with tertiary prophylaxis in adults with severe and moderately severe haemophilia B. Data were collected from all eligible adult (≥ 18 years of age) males with baseline FIX:C ≤ 2% from seven Canadian Hemophilia Treatment centres over a 2-year observation period from 2009 to 2011. Thirty-four per cent of the 67 subjects with moderately severe haemophilia B were exposed to prophylaxis with the majority as continuous prophylaxis (≥45 weeks year(-1) ). The severe subgroup (FIX:C < 1%) demonstrated a 52% exposure rate. None had primary prophylaxis exposure in childhood. Eighty-one per cent used once or twice weekly infusion regimens and reported a median annual bleeding rate of five bleeds per year versus four bleeds per year for those using on-demand treatment. Annual median factor utilization for all subjects using prophylaxis was 196,283 U year(-1) compared to 46,361 U year(-1) for on demand. Approximately 50% of adults with severe haemophilia B are using continuous tertiary prophylaxis in Canada, a practice likely to increase which warrants further study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".