An objective method for assessing adherence to prophylaxis in adults with severe haemophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe haemophilia is often managed by prophylactic factor infusions in developed countries. The benefits of secondary prophylaxis in adults are currently being studied and adherence to the prescribed prophylactic factor regimen is vital to decreasing bleeding episodes. The aim of this study was to measure discrepancy between the physicians' prescription for prophylactic factor usage, and the actual factor usage obtained through infusion logs. During this method subjects with severe haemophilia A or B (FVIII or FIX ≤2%), from a single haemophilia clinic with complete medical and infusion records from July 01, 2009 to June 30, 2011, were evaluated. Continuous prophylaxis ≥4 weeks were included in the analysis. A scoring system for adherence to prescribed dosing and frequency was developed. A global scale of adherence was performed by two independent nurses using visual analogue scale. Thirty-one subjects, all with haemophilia A, with a median age of 26 years (range 18-56) were included. Results showed that the median (IQR) adherence rate to prescribed frequency and dosage, respectively, was 76% (67;85) and 93% (73;97). In multivariate analysis, only the length of time on prophylaxis during the study period showed a positive correlation with adherence whereas age, number of co-infections, number of bleeds and number of joints with chronic arthropathy did not. Global nursing assessments were in general agreement with the score. In conclusion, we observed a moderately good level of adherence based on score and by the nurse global assessment. Better adherence was found in subjects with longer exposure to prophylaxis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".