The North American Immune Tolerance Registry: contributions to the thirty‐year experience with immune tolerance therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The North American Immune Tolerance Registry (NAITR) began in 1992 as a project of the ISTH Factor VIII/IX Subcommittee with the goal of further determining immune tolerance induction (ITI) practices in Canada and the United States. This retrospective registry study, published in 2002, was limited in its capacity to provide definitive answers to many unresolved ITI practice issues. Nonetheless, it played a role in developing guidelines for current ITI practice and in generating hypotheses that must now be examined through rigorous prospective data collection efforts. For haemophilia A, the logical next step has been the initiation of international prospective randomized studies of ITI outcome relative to factor VIII (FVIII) dose and purity for subjects with high titre inhibitors. Both trials will additionally provide platforms for translational study of the immunology of tolerance, a prelude to the next generation of safe and effective tolerizing strategies. For the less common problem of FIX inhibitor eradication, prospective randomized studies will not be a feasible way to confirm the NAITR observations. Coordinated international efforts will still be required to prospectively collect data on ITI outcome to document new potentially effective therapeutic strategies for inhibitor eradication. These registries will hopefully also serve to identify potential subjects for scientific studies of immunology of haemophilia B-related allergic phenomena, a devastating complication of FIX antibody development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".