Intracranial haemorrhage in children and adolescents with severe haemophilia A or B – the impact of prophylactic treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discussion of prophylactic therapy in haemophilia is largely focused on joint outcomes. The impact of prophylactic therapy on intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) is less known. This study aimed to analyse ICH in children with haemophilia, with a focus on different prophylaxis regimens and sequelae of ICH. We conducted a multicentre retrospective and prospective study that included 33 haemophilia centres from 20 countries. Inclusion criteria were children and adolescents born between 1993 and 2014, with severe haemophilia A or B without inhibitors. Participants were categorized by prophylaxis regimen: full, partial or none, based on dose and dose frequency of regular infusions. The cohort study included 1515 children: 29 cases of ICH over 8038 patient years were reported. The incidence of ICH in the prophylaxis group, 0·00033 cases of ICH/patient year, was significantly lower compared to the no prophylaxis group, 0·017 cases of ICH/patient year (RR 50·06; P < 0·001) and the partial prophylaxis group, 0·0050 cases of ICH/patient year (RR 14·92; P = 0·007). In the on-demand-group, 8% (2/24) children with ICH died and 33% had long-term sequelae, including intellectual and behavioural problems, paresis and epilepsy. Children on regular, frequent prophylaxis have a low risk of ICH compared to those using non-frequent or no prophylaxis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".