Blood pressure in haemophilia and its relation to clotting factor usage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with haemophilia have a higher prevalence of hypertension than the general population that cannot be explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as age, race, diabetes or obesity. Patients with severe haemophilia, who are on clotting factor prophylaxis, have a higher prevalence of hypertension compared to patients with milder forms of haemophilia, who infuse clotting factor less frequently. This raises the question of whether there is a link between clotting factor usage and blood pressure in haemophilia patients. Methods Data was collected from 193 patients with severe haemophilia presenting to three haemophilia treatment centres in the United States and Canada, including age, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP), Hepatitis C (HCV) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection status, and clotting factor usage from pharmacy prescriptions (units/kg/year). The correlation between BP and factor usage was examined using quantile regression models. Results Systolic and diastolic BP plotted against factor use showed a cone-shaped scatter of points. There was no association between clotting factor usage and higher systolic or diastolic BP. Conclusion Our observations provide no evidence for an association between increased clotting factor usage and high BP.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".