Hemophilia gene therapy knowledge and perceptions: Results of an international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemophilia gene therapy is a rapidly evolving therapeutic approach in which a number of programs are approaching clinical development completion. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate knowledge and perceptions of a variety of health care practitioners and scientists about gene therapy for hemophilia. METHODS: This survey study was conducted February 1 to 18, 2019. Survey participants were members of the ISTH, European Hemophilia Consortium, European Hematology Association, or European Association for Hemophilia and Allied Disorders with valid email contacts. The online survey consisted of 36 questions covering demographic information, perceptions and knowledge of gene therapy for hemophilia, and educational preferences. Survey results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 5117 survey recipients, 201 responded from 55 countries (4% response rate). Most respondents (66%) were physicians, and 59% were physicians directly involved in the care of people with hemophilia. Among physician respondents directly involved in hemophilia care, 35% lacked the ability to explain the science of adeno-associated viral gene therapy for hemophilia, and 40% indicated limited ability or lack of comfort answering patient questions about gene therapy for hemophilia based on clinical trial results to date. Overall, 75% of survey respondents answered 10 single-answer knowledge questions correctly, 13% incorrectly, and 12% were unsure of the correct answers. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlighted knowledge gaps and educational needs related to gene therapy for hemophilia and, along with other inputs, has informed the development of "Gene Therapy in Hemophilia: An ISTH Education Initiative."
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".