MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Delayed Treatment of Bleeding in Patients with Mild Hemophilia Can Very Significantly Affect Overall Need for Therapy.

2005· article· en· W2548040475 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn Goodyear, M.F. Scully, Marc Kawaja

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryRange of motionAspirinMedical historyArthropathyHemarthrosisAtrial fibrillationFamily historyInternal medicineOsteoarthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract AB is a 73 year old Caucasian male who was diagnosed with mild Hemophilia A in 2001. He is part of a large kindred of patients with mild Hemophilia A enrolled in a cohort study. His family history was strongly positive. He was referred at the age of 69 years by a family member. His baseline Factor VIII level was 0.10. AB’s past medical history is characteristic of mild Hemophilia A. As a child he suffered frequently from epistaxis. He bled extensively after lacerations. He had had three significant accidents during his adult years, each of which resulted in massive bleeding and multiple blood transfusions. He had had three dental extractions which resulted in significant bleeding during two of three procedures. He had a hydrocele repair without complications. In 1999, he was extensively investigated for melena with no cause. He had an episode of atrial fibrillation and a possible transient ischemic attack treated with warfarin and aspirin. AB reported significant joint swelling and decreased range of motion. He also reported that he had “a leaky heart valve’. His initial physical examination revealed significant musculoskeletal problems. He had decreased range of motion bilaterally in his hips. He had extensive swelling of both knees and decreased range motion of both ankles. There was a limb length discrepancy of 1.5 cm. AB denied severe joint pain in his lower limbs or the usual symptoms associated with hemophiliac arthropathy. His aPTT was prolonged but he had not had a Factor VIII level previously measured and had never been told that he had Hemophilia A. He received a trial of prophylactic Recombinant Factor VIII three times a week for two months and was referred to an orthopedic surgeon. He received a “Factor First” Identification card recommending he receive 4000 units Recombinant Factor VIII for a major bleed. However, he had great difficulty in accepting the diagnosis and neither he nor his family initially volunteered that he had Hemophilia on his next admission. In April, 2002, AB was admitted to ICU in a community hospital, in Diabetic Ketoacidosis, three weeks after a snowmobile accident. Retrospectively, he reported back pain which he managed with NSAIDS. He was unable to walk prior to his hospitalization. In ICU, he required daily transfusions of PRBC & FFP. Abdominal CT on admission reported a resolving iliopsoas hematomas after an upper gastrointestinal bleed he was transferred to the provincial tertiary care centre. Follow-up CT showed bilateral ilopsoas hemtomas with abscess formation. A CT guided aspiration confirmed the presence of Staphyloccus aureus and a left paravertebral abscess. Follow-up CT showed no improvement. A second CT guided aspiration was performed which showed vertebral body destruction of L3, L4 and L5, discitis and multiple abscess formation. AB underwent L3-S1 fusion with laminectomy and decompression of L3–L4 and L4–L5 with no complications. In total AB received 316,040 units of RF VIII during a 122 day period of hospitalization. In contrast, the other 60 patients enrolled in our study only used 656,515 in a 4-year period. FACTOR VIII PRODUCT USAGE 2001–2004 FACTOR VIII PRODUCT USAGE 2001–2004

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→