Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Extracorporeal immunoadsorption is being increasingly applied in a variety of disorders. This approach is particularly suited to removal of antibodies or inhibitors to coagulation factor VIII and may be particularly useful before the administration of large amounts of expensive replacement or bypass therapy for patients with hemophilia who are bleeding, or patients undergoing immune tolerance therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: In patients with inhibitors to factor VIII, several types of immunoadsorption therapy have been used, although reports are mainly anecdotal, consisting of relatively small numbers of persons. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that immunoadsorption may be clinically effective and cost-effective and should be considered early in the treatment of appropriate patients. New immunoadsorption technologies are being described for a variety of disorders, including hemophilia, and a new synthetic matrix of polystyrene beads functionalized with sulfonate and tyrosyl methylester groups for immunoadsorption removal of factor VIII inhibitors is intriguing. SUMMARY: Although immunoadsorption was shown to be clinically effective in patients with inhibitors to factor VIII more than two decades ago, recent papers have emphasized the desirability of early implementation of the modality in the treatment plan. Immunoadsorption is relatively easy to perform with few adverse effects, but specialized equipment is required, and it should be performed in an experienced setting. Although potentially less costly than other (bypass) therapies, immunoadsorption is itself not inexpensive, and its comparative effectiveness with plasmapheresis and other management options for the dangerously bleeding patient with antibodies to factor VIII should be determined by multicenter randomized controlled trials. Interesting recent novel technical developments in the field may facilitate increased use of the procedure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".