A comparison of traditional vs. Canadian tailored prophylaxis dosing of prophylactic factor infusions in children with haemophilia A and B in a single hemophilia treatment center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prophylactic infusion of clotting factor concentrates is a developing standard of care for individuals with haemophilia. The ideal schedule and techniques of prophylactic infusions remain incompletely defined. Our aim was to determine the optimal techniques and schedules for factor prophylaxis in paediatric patients. A retrospective electronic medical record review of all children treated with prophylactic factor infusions in a single Haemophilia Treatment Center was conducted. Comparison of traditional vs. Canadian dosing regimens and primary vs. secondary prophylaxis was made. Failure of prophylaxis was defined as the first serious bleed. A total of 58 children were identified for review. Five cases were excluded (four due to high titre inhibitors and one due to repeated non-compliance), thus there were 53 total cases: 46 with severe haemophilia, 2 with moderate haemophilia, 5 with mild haemophilia, 44 with haemophilia A and 9 with haemophilia B; 32 Traditional dosing and 21 Canadian dosing regimens. Patients on primary prophylaxis had a decreased failure rate (25%) compared to children treated with secondary prophylaxis (67%) regardless of technique of prophylaxis. When compared to a 'Traditional' factor prophylaxis schedule, the 'Canadian' tailored prophylaxis protocol was comparable with the exception of a decreased use of implanted venous devices in the 'Canadian' group. Ongoing bleeding (primarily joint bleeds) occurs with all prophylactic regimens. The lowest incidence of treatment failure was noted in children who began primary prophylaxis at a young age and before initial joint bleeds. Primary prophylaxis is superior to secondary prophylaxis regardless of dosing regimen. Traditional and Canadian dosing regimens were equivalent in outcome when measured over several years of follow-up.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".