Kreuth V initiative: European consensus proposals for treatment of hemophilia using standard products, extended half-life coagulation factor concentrates and non-replacement therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report contains the updated consensus recommendations for optimal hemophilia care produced in 2019 by three Working Groups (WG) on behalf of the European Directorate for Quality of Medicines and Healthcare in the frame of the Kreuth V Initiative. WG1 recommended access to prophylaxis for all patients, the achievement of plasma factor trough levels of at least 3-5% when extended half-life factor VIII (FVIII) and FIX products are used, a personalized treatment regimen, and a choice of chromogenic assays for treatment monitoring. It was also emphasized that innovative therapies should be supervised by hemophilia comprehensive care centers. WG2 recommended mandatory collection of postmarketing data to assure the long-term safety and efficacy of new hemophilia therapies, the establishment of national patient registries including the core data recommended by the European Medicines Agency and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, with adequate support under public control, and greater collaboration to facilitate a comprehensive data evaluation throughout Europe. WG3 discussed methodological aspects of hemophilia care in the context of access decisions, particularly for innovative therapies, and recommended that clinical studies should be designed to provide the quality of evidence needed by regulatory authorities, HTA bodies and healthcare providers. The dialogue between all stakeholders in hemophilia care and patient organizations should be fostered to implement these recommendations.
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 | 0.101 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".