Outcomes for studies assessing the efficacy of hemostatic therapies in persons with congenital bleeding disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Management strategies and hemostatic treatments to achieve control of bleeding are relevant across many disease areas. Identification of primary outcomes for studies assessing hemostatic intervention was the objective of a National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) sponsored multidisciplinary initiative. The aim of this report is to summarize the evidence reviewed, and the outcomes identified by the subgroup tasked to assess outcomes for inherited bleeding disorders. METHODS: The subgroup decided to focus on haemophilia, the prototypal congenital bleeding disorder and the one with the largest available body of evidence. MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO, The Cochrane Review, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for systematic and narrative reviews on outcomes used in haemophilia clinical trials. Three different clinical goals were identified as typical objectives of future research. RESULTS: Out of 1322 unique citations, 24 reviews published in the period 2002-2019 were included. We identified 113 outcome measures, categorized in 6 domains: health-related quality of life (HRQoL), comorbidities and mortality, overall physical functioning and participation, bleeding and hemostasis, joint health, and costs and resource use. Three different clinical goals were identified as typical objectives of future research: Episodic 'on demand' replacement therapy, prevention of bleeding (Prophylaxis), and long-term and overall impact of bleeding. For each of these scenarios, specific outcomes were recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Primary outcomes for clinical trials assessing the efficacy of hemostatic treatment in achieving control, prevention and limiting long-term consequences of bleeding in inherited bleeding disorders are suggested, and their strength and limitations discussed.
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 | 0.049 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".