MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inhibitor treatment in haemophilias A and B: summary statement for the 2006 international consensus conference

2006· article· en· W2156715774 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Berntorp, A Shapiro, Jan Astermark, V. Blanchette, P. Collins, Donna DiMichele, Carmen Escuriola, C. R. M. Hay, W. Keith Hoots, Cindy Leissinger, Claude Négrier, Johannes Oldenburg, K. Peerlinck, Mark T. Reding, Carol S. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemophilia · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersCSL Behring Foundation for Research and Advancement of Patient Health
KeywordsMedicineStatement (logic)Consensus conferenceMEDLINEFamily medicineInternal medicineLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participants in an international conference on the management of haemophilia patients with inhibitors developed a jointly authored summary of the findings and conclusions of the conference. Current knowledge of the genetic and immunologic mechanisms underlying inhibitor development was briefly summarized. Concerning the purported treatment-related risk factors, conference participants commented on the limitations of the available evidence and the need for more rigorous prospective research in a fully genotyped population. Other clinical considerations discussed included the unproved utility of routine surveillance, the need for assay standardization, the management of acute bleeding and approaches to joint disease prophylaxis and immune tolerance induction (ITI). A number of issues were identified as needing further investigation in larger prospective studies, ideally through international cooperation. Such studies should enroll cohorts that have been scrupulously defined in terms of mutation status and treatment exposure. Finally, conference participants urged their colleagues to participate in the currently ongoing international trials of ITI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations107
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaemophiliaSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207