Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevention and treatment of bleeding in hemophilia requires that plasma clotting factor activity of the replaced factor exceeds a defined target level. Most clinical decisions in hemophilia are based on implicit or explicit application of pharmacokinetic measures. The large interindividual variability in pharmacokinetics of factor concentrates suggests that relying on the average pharmacokinetic characteristics of factor concentrates would not allow optimizing the treatment of individual patients; for example, adjusting the frequency of infusions and targeting a specific clotting factor activity level on a case-by-case basis. However, individual pharmacokinetic profiles are seldom assessed as part of routine clinical care. Population pharmacokinetics provide options for precise and convenient characterization of pharmacokinetics characteristics of factor concentrates, simplified individual pharmacokinetic profiling, and individualized dosing. Population pharmacokinetics allow for the incorporation of determinants of interpatient variability and reduces the need for extensive postinfusion plasma sampling. Barriers to the implementation of population pharmacokinetics are the need for concentrate-specific pharmacokinetic models, Bayesian calculation power, and specific expertise for production, validation, and appraisal of forecasted estimates. Population pharmacokinetics provide an important theoretical and practical contribution to tailoring the treatment of hemophilia. The need remains for prospective exploration of the clinical impact of tailoring hemophilia treatment based on individual pharmacokinetics, and for the systematic validation of existing software solutions and concentrate-specific models.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".