Cardiovascular disease prevalence and relevance in haemophilia: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and events in patients with haemophilia (PWH) is expected to increase as the longevity of this cohort increases due to treatment advances since the 1950s. The aims of this study were to assess publications of CVD and haemophilia for robustness, determine if the increasing longevity of PWH and associated age-related CVD risk factors result in CVD events; assess the need for an extension of the circle of care for ageing PWH due to the shift in comorbidities. A scoping review was conducted, resulting in a final pool of 30 articles which were organized based on publication dates. A matrix was created to illustrate which articles cited articles published prior to its own publication. This led to the identification of the primary articles, receiving the highest number of citations by other publications, which drive the research pertaining to the study of age-related risk factors of CVD in PWH. The scoping review revealed 14 original articles, four of which indicated a protective effect of haemophilia toward CVD. Twelve articles demonstrated a similar prevalence of CVD in PWH compared to the general population while seven articles concluded a difference in the prevalence of CVD in the ageing haemophilia population. The existing literature presented conflicting evidence regarding the possibility of a protective effect of haemophilia against CVD. The scoping review was not able to finalize whether the longevity of PWH and their associated age-related CVD risk factors result in CVD events because the articles assessed reported conflicting results.
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 | 0.010 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".