Low‐dose surgical prophylaxis: Optimization of use of World Federation of Hemophilia Humanitarian Aid donated clotting factor concentrates to developing countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with hemophilia (PWH) might need surgical interventions during the course of their lives. Such medical interventions pose hemostatic challenges and requests infusion of clotting factor concentrates (CFCs) during peri and postoperative for variable periods to prevent bleeding and until complete wound healing. Access to CFCs to PWH living in resource limited settings is usually a challenge which makes surgical interventions either risky or not practical. Recently World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) started a humanitarian aid program to channel CFCs into resource limited countries and which allowed the possibility to perform surgical interventions for PWH in these countries. AIM OF WORK: To study safety and efficacy of using lower doses of CFCs for surgical prophylaxis. METHODS: Review of literature and our center experience to demonstrate safety and efficacy of low dose surgical prophylaxis using CFCs RESULTS: Several elements can help using lower doses of CFCs for surgical prophylaxis in resource limited setting. These elements include severity of hemophilia, type of surgical procedure, the use of hemostatic surgical techniques, the type of CFCs, the mode of infusion of CFCs and finally the use of adjunctive therapies CONCLUSION: Management of surgical procedures for PWH in a multidisciplinary specialized hemophilia treatment centers with proper understanding of hemostatic and surgical challenges of the procedure can allow for safe and effective use of lower doses of CFCs for surgical prophylaxis.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".