The impact of factor VIII inhibitors on factor consumption in haemophilia: a case-control study in the south of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhibitors in patients with haemophilia are rare complication causing pain, disability and impairment. There is a general perception that it has a determinant impact on costs of care in these patients. The costs of factor consumption in 6 Iranian hemophiliacs with high responding inhibitors as the case group and 6 hemophiliacs without inhibitors as the control during 12 months were studied in a clinical centre in south of Iran. The data concerning clinical and demographic characteristics of patients were retrieved from their medical records. Results indicated that all patients suffered from severe haemophilia. The mean weight of inhibitors and non-inhibitors groups was 67.33 (±18.67) and 66 (±15.23) respectively. Overall 1.79 (±0.75) and 1.95 (±1.66) bleeding per patient monthly were recorded for inhibitors and non-inhibitors groups, respectively. The median annual costs of care were three time higher for inhibitors than non-inhibitors patients (US$ 67987.875 vs. US$ 21415.145). in conclusion: Based on the finding from the current study, presence of inhibitor affects the cost of factor replacement therapy in treating of haemophilia A in short-term.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".