Comparing the burden of illness of haemophilia between resource‐constrained and unconstrained countries: the São Paulo–Toronto Hemophilia Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although the regular replacement of clotting factor concentrates (prophylaxis) has been well established as the standard of care for severe haemophilia, the high cost of factor concentrates has limited access to prophylaxis in countries with under-developed or developing economies. AIMS: We studied the health gap that could be addressed by providing unlimited access to clotting factor concentrates with implementation of long-term prophylaxis initiated from an early age in life. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of a random, representative sample of boys with moderate and severe haemophilia at three haemophilia treatment centres in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and one centre in Toronto, Canada. RESULTS: Canadian subjects were more often treated with prophylaxis, and began treatment at an earlier age. Fewer Canadian subjects had bleeds within the preceding 6 months (19 vs. 34, P = 0.003). Canadian subjects had lower (better) Pettersson radiographic scores (1.5 vs. 6.0, P = 0.0016), lower (better) Hemophilia Joint Health Scores (5.5 vs. 10.5, P = 0.0038), higher (better) Activity Scale for Kids scores (96.6 vs. 92.0, P = 0.033), more time spent in vigorous activity, and higher (better) social participation scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that increasing access to clotting factor concentrates for young boys with severe haemophilia is a global imperative.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".