Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: Neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) directed against the FVIII protein may increase the bleeding frequency and compromise the management of bleeding episodes in nonsevere haemophilia A patients. The median annual bleeding frequency in patients without inhibitors is described to be 0 (IQR 0-3) for mild haemophilia and 1 (IQR 0-13) for moderate haemophilia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the burden of bleeding and to describe the treatment strategies that are used for bleeding episodes in a large group of unselected inhibitor patients with nonsevere haemophilia A. Materials and Methods: We included all inhibitor patients from the INSIGHT study, an international multicentre cohort study including all 2709 nonsevere HA patients (FVIII:C 2-4 IU/dL) that received at least 1 exposure to FVIII concentrate between 1980-2011. Data of the 1st inhibitor period were analyzed. Results: We included 107 nonsevere HA inhibitor patients (median baseline FVIII:C 9 IU/dL (IQR 6-16); median age of 38 years (IQR 15-61)). A high titre inhibitor (> 5 BU/mL) was present in 57 (53%) patients. In 30 (28%) patients the FVIII:C level was decreased ≤1 IU/dL. Eighty-nine patients (83%) received treatment for bleeding episodes. Most patients had spontaneous bleeds (n = 49, 46%); a higher proportion of high titre patients had spontaneous bleeds compared to low titre patients (83% vs. 53%, relative risk (RR) 2.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-5.8). The median number of bleeding episodes per inhibitor year was 2 (IQR 1-5); this did not differ between patients with FVIII:C ≤ 1 IU/dL and those with measurable FVIII levels (p = 0.5), patients with low titre and high titre inhibitors (p = 0.5) and patients receiving eradication treatment or not (p = 0.7). In order to treat bleedings, FVIII concentrate was used in 59 patients (55%), FVIII bypassing agents in 50 (47%) and desmopressin in 18 patients (17%). Desmopressin was used more often in patients with remaining circulating FVIII:C levels compared to patients with a FVIII:C ≤ 1 IU/dL and in patients without eradication treatment compared to patients with eradication treatment (25% vs. 3%; RR 7.4, CI 1.0-53.5 and 25% vs. 0%; RR 14.0, CI 0.9 - 224.6, respectively). Conclusion: Inhibitor development in nonsevere HA patients aggravates the burden of bleeding with the majority (83%) of the patients needing treatment for bleeding episodes, at a median of 2 bleeding episodes per year.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.030 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".