Bibliographic record
Abstract
: Prophylaxis entails long-term continuous intravenous administration of concentrates of the deficient factor with a view to preventing spontaneous bleeds and the development of hemophilic arthropathy. Initiation of prophylaxis at an early age and continuous uninterrupted factor administration in patients with hemophilia have been hailed as essential by such organizations.The most widely used prophylaxis regimens include the Swedish (Malmö), the Dutch and the Canadian protocols. Different international groups have hailed prophylaxis as the most effective treatment in patients with hemophilia.Prophylaxis is effectiveness in preventing bleeding and arthropathy in children with (particularly early-onset) hemophilia. Although some retrospective trials confirm the benefits of prophylaxis, others point to a lack of conclusive data to support switching adult patients with established hemophilic arthropathy who always received on-demand treatment to prophylactic treatment.The potential effects of prophylaxis on the patients' sex lives, renal status, prostate involvement and cataract must be analyzed before indicating prophylactic treatment in elderly patients.The high efficacy of prophylactic treatment in patients with hemophilia and inhibitors has been widely reported in the literature.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".