MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404760415 · doi:10.1055/s-0037-1619747

Evidence of prophylaxis treatment in adult haemophiliacs

2011· article· en· W2404760415 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J Holzschuh, K-H Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueHämostaseologie · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In contrast to children with haemophilia the scientific evidence of prophylaxis treatment in adults is not yet proven. Existing studies are of observational character and mostly retrospectively designed. Therefore, opinion leaders in this field postulate prospectively designed, randomized, controlled and multicentric studies to set up urgently needed guidelines. Evidence according to the Canadian task force ranking is assessed as level III with a recommendation grade C by the authors. The recognition of benefits of health care providers in accordance with the German Federal Joint Committee generally demands a Grade-Ia to Ib evidence. As long as the actual evidence of prophylaxis in adult haemophiliacs does not meet the postulated criteria of the German Federal Joint Committee, prophylactic replacement therapy of the individual case has to be well documented and reasonably explained.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHämostaseologieSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207