MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimizing factor prophylaxis for the haemophilia population: where do we stand?

2004· review· en· W2121017407 on OpenAlexaff
Victor S. Blanchette, M. Manco‐Johnson, Elena Santagostino, Rolf Ljung

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemophilia · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHaemophiliaHaemophilia AHaemophilia BRegimenArthropathyFactor IXPopulationPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hallmark of severe haemophilia, defined as a circulating level of factor (F) VIII (haemophilia A cases) or FIX (haemophilia B cases) of < 1%, is recurrent bleeding into muscles and joints (haemarthroses) from an early age of life. The inevitable result of such bleeding is progressive joint damage, leading to disabling arthritis that is typically evident within the first 2 decades of life in people with haemophilia who have limited or no access to regular factor replacement therapy, or those in whom factor replacement therapy is ineffective because of the presence of high-titre inhibitors. For children with severe haemophilia and no evidence of inhibitors, the unwanted musculoskeletal complications of severe haemophilia can be effectively prevented by the early initiation of a programme of long-term factor prophylaxis. In order to achieve the best outcome (a perfect musculoskeletal status for age) the programme of prophylaxis should be started before the onset of joint damage (primary prophylaxis). The gold standard primary prophylaxis regimen (the Malmo protocol) was pioneered and tested in Sweden and involves the infusion of 20-40 IU of FVIII per kg body weight on alternate days (minimum three times per week) for haemophilia A cases, and 20-40 IU kg(-1) of FIX twice weekly for haemophilia B cases. This protocol is, however, demanding on peripheral veins and very expensive. Modifications of the parent protocol such as starting primary prophylaxis with once-weekly infusions via peripheral veins with rapid escalation to full-dose prophylaxis or dose escalation based on frequency of bleeding are increasingly implemented in haemophilia treatment centres in countries that can afford the high cost of such programmes. These modified programmes can be achieved in the majority of young children with severe haemophilia without the need for central venous access devices (e.g. Port-a-Caths) and with avoidance of device-associated complications such as infection and thrombosis. In at least one centre, experience with arteriovenous fistulae as a strategy to ensure reliable venous access is being accumulated. The issues of compliance (adherence) to recommended prophylaxis protocols and when, if ever, to stop a programme of primary prophylaxis once started are real and require ongoing prospective studies. Such studies should incorporate outcome measures such as health-related quality-of-life and economic analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations89
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaemophiliaSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207