Review of the Manitoba cohort of patients with hereditary angioedema with normal C1 inhibitor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema with normal C1 inhibitor (HAE-nC1 INH) is a rare, underappreciated condition characterized by recurrent subcutaneous angioedema. The underlying pathophysiology and diagnostic criteria continues to evolve. There is a significant overlap between HAE-nC1 INH and idiopathic nonhistaminergic angioedema, ultimately this may be found to be the same condition. Characterization of cohorts suspected to have either of these conditions is warranted to help refine diagnosis, pathophysiology, and treatment response. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 418 patients diagnosed with angioedema was conducted. The following inclusion criteria was used: lack of response to antihistamines, steroids, and epinephrine; normal C4, C1 inhibitor (C1 INH) level and function; lack of urticaria or pruritus; occurrence without offending drugs; and positive family history. Enzyme immunoassays for C1 INH function were performed at the Mayo Clinic. Charts meeting these criteria were reviewed for frequency and type of episodes as well as use and response to therapies. RESULTS: 6 patients met the above criteria. 3 of these completed genetic testing, none were found to have factor XII abnormalities. None had angiopoietin 1 or plasminogen gene sequencing. 5 of 6 patients were successfully treated with C1 INH or tranexamic acid for acute treatment of attacks (4 with C1 INH and 1 with tranexamic acid). 4 patients have used Icatibant with good response (typically under 40 min for near full recovery); of these, 3 required Icatibant as acute treatment after other therapies (C1 inhibitor and tranexamic acid) were ineffective. There were 9 patients who otherwise met criteria, but due to a lack of family history were classified as having idiopathic non-histaminergic angioedema. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective chart review found 6 HAE-nC1 INH patients in Manitoba. 1 responded to tranexamic acid and not C1 INH, 4 typically responded to C1 INH, and 1 responded exclusively to Icatibant. All patients-4 total-who used Icatibant responded; of these 4 patients, 3 required Icatibant after other therapies had failed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".