MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Rationale for Investigator-Assigned Prophylaxis Dosing Frequency in the Leopold I Study

2016· article· en· W2979686089 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas J. Humphries, Nikki Church, Shadan Lalezari, Lone Hvitfeldt Poulsen, Mia Yoon, Monika Maas Enriquez

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsBayer (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegimenMedicineTolerabilityDosingReferralClinical trialInternal medicineAdverse effectFamily medicineSurgeryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The LEOPOLD I study (part B) in severe hemophilia A was a multicenter, phase II/III, open-label trial to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of prophylaxis treatment with BAY 81-8973, an unmodified recombinant factor VIII product. Dose and dose frequency of the prophylaxis regimen during the study were at the investigators' discretion. A questionnaire was sent to sites poststudy to determine what elements led to the assignment of patients to a twice-weekly regimen rather than 3 times weekly. Seventeen specific questions were posed, plus 1 labeled as "other," allowing the investigator to insert a rationale not otherwise specified. Responses to the questionnaire were received for 13 of 17 patients (76%) assigned to twice-weekly prophylaxis. The 2 most frequent responses were "treatment options were discussed with the patients" (67%) and "patient preference" (61%). Additional responses in descending frequency included "prophylaxis regimen was adapted to the patient's physical activity and schedule" (28%) and "already on a twice-weekly regimen before the study," "sedentary lifestyle," "noncompliance with a 3-times-weekly regimen," and "other" (17% each). "Minimal arthropathy," "no target joints," and "patient's age" were included at 11% each. These results demonstrate that discussions between patient and doctor are appropriately considered paramount to treatment decisions. The other elements mentioned are known parameters thought to contribute to bleeding phenotype in hemophilia. Disclosures Humphries: Bayer: Employment. Church:Bayer: Employment. Lalezari:Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; TEVA pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Poulsen:Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Investigator for Clinical Trials; Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Investigator for Clinical Trials, Mentor, Speakers Bureau; SOBI: Speakers Bureau; Ferring: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Yoon:Bayer Inc: Employment. Maas Enriquez:Bayer Pharma AG: Employment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.163
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.175
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1630.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→