Significant reduction in hemarthrosis in boys with severe hemophilia A: The China hemophilia individualized low‐dose secondary prophylaxis study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In countries with restricted access to clotting factor concentrates, early implementation of low-dose prophylaxis is recommended over episodic treatment. Objective The objective of this 1-year prospective secondary prophylaxis study was to evaluate the efficacy of a dose/frequency escalating protocol in young boys with hemophilia A in China. Methods Boys were started on a low-dose protocol (minimum 10–15 IU/kg of factor VIII [FVIII] twice weekly). Escalation was based on index joint bleeding, swelling/persistent joint swelling, and serial ultrasound (gray scale and color Doppler) examinations of index joints. Results Thirty-three boys, median age 4.8 years (interquartile range, 3.8-6.1) were enrolled in a 3-month observation period that preceded a 1-year prophylaxis phase. A significant reduction in total bleeding events (43.0%, P = .001), index joint bleeds (53.2%, P = .002), and target index joint bleeds (70.0%, P = 0.02) was observed during the prophylaxis phase. During the prophylaxis period, 40% of target joints resolved. The percentage of boys with zero index joint bleeds increased significantly (P = .004) from 51.5% during the observation phase to 81.8% in last quarter of the prophylaxis phase (months 10-12). There was no progression of arthropathy based on physical examination (Hemophilia Joint Health Score), X-ray, and ultrasound obtained at entry into the prophylaxis phase and at study exit. The median FVIII consumption over the prophylaxis phase was 1786 IU/kg/y. Conclusion A low-dose, individualized prophylaxis protocol, guided by individual bleeding profiles and serial assessment of joint status, enables escalation of treatment intensity in boys with severe hemophilia A, leading to a significant reduction in bleeding events and reduction in target joint bleeding.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".