The second Team Haemophilia Education Meeting, 2016, Frankfurt, Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first Team Haemophilia Education (THE) Meeting was held on 7-8 May 2015 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. It aimed to promote the optimal care of patients with haemophilia through education of the multidisciplinary treatment team. This was achieved by reviewing the latest developments in haemophilia management, considering how these can be implemented in the clinic to improve patient care and providing a platform for networking and debate for all haemophilia treatment team members. The second THE Meeting was held on 19-20 May in Frankfurt, Germany, and participants included doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, patient representatives and data management staff from 20 different countries. Topics covered the role of the multidisciplinary team in delivering the best haemophilia care, challenges in the management of haemophilia across Europe, available clotting factor treatments, future treatments and the use of genetics in advising carriers of haemophilia. This report is a summary of the key developments in haemophilia care presented by various investigators and healthcare professionals at THE Meeting 2016.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.104 | 0.036 |
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".