MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129688332 · doi:10.1097/hs9.0000000000000540

Hemophilia Gene Therapy: Approaching the First Licensed Product

2021· review· en· W3129688332 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Batty, David Lillicrap

Bibliographic record

VenueHemaSphere · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic enhancementClinical trialMedicineIntensive care medicineGeneBiologyInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinical potential of hemophilia gene therapy has now been pursued for the past 30 years, and there is a realistic expectation that this goal will be achieved within the next couple of years with the licensing of a gene therapy product. While recent late phase clinical trials of hemophilia gene therapy have shown promising results, there remain a number of issues that require further attention with regard to both efficacy and safety of this therapeutic approach. In this review, we present information relating to the current status of the field and focus attention on the unanswered questions for hemophilia gene therapy and the future challenges that need to be overcome to enable the widespread application of this treatment paradigm.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemaSphereSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207