Severe haemophilia A children on low‐dose tertiary prophylaxis showed less joint deterioration and better maintenance of functional independence than children on on‐demand treatment: A 6‐year follow‐up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In countries with limited resource, haemophilia patients have to choose low-dose prophylaxis or on-demand treatment (ODT) because of economic constraints. Whether low-dose prophylaxis can achieve better joint function outcome than ODT over long-term remains unclear. AIM: To investigate the long-term effect of low-dose tertiary prophylaxis versus ODT on joint health in severe haemophilia A children. METHODS: This was a retrospective study. We enrolled and followed 34 severe haemophilia boys in China receiving on-demand treatment (n = 18) or low-dose prophylaxis (10-15 IU/kg, 2-3 times per week) for a medium-term (6-18 months, n = 9) or longer-term (19-30 months, n = 7). We evaluated their haemophilia joint health score (HJHS) 2.1 and functional independence score in haemophilia (FISH) at baseline and at their 6-year follow-up visits. Their annual bleeding rate (ABR) and annual joint bleeding rate (AJBR) were also recorded. RESULTS: During the 6-year follow-up period, ABR and AJBR were similar between the 2 prophylaxis groups, with each of the 2 prophylaxis group rates being significantly better (lower) than the ODT group (P < .05). Compared to baseline values, evaluation at 6-year follow-up showed HJHS improvement in both prophylaxis groups, although significantly (P < .05) only in the longer-term prophylaxis group. The FISH score showed insignificant change in patients in each prophylaxis cohort, compared to significant worsening (P < .05) in the ODT group. CONCLUSION: Low-dose tertiary prophylaxis reduced ABR and AJBR of children with severe haemophilia and better maintained their functional independence by the FISH over the long term. Longer-term prophylaxis also improved their joint health status by the HJHS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".