MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230307904 · doi:10.1111/hae.13911

Abstracts

2020· article· it· W4230307904 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Johannes Oldenburg, Margareth C. Ozelo, Robert Klamroth, Benoît Guillet, Angela Huth-Kuehne

Post-publication record

OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemophilia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChugai PharmaceuticalLEO PharmaGrifolsUniversidade Estadual de MaringáAlexion PharmaceuticalsUniversitat de ValènciaUniversidade Estadual de LondrinaLeids Universitair Medisch CentrumSwedish Orphan BiovitrumNovo NordiskChristian Medical College, VelloreUniversity of OxfordImperial College Healthcare NHS TrustUniversity of WashingtonImperial College LondonRoyal Free London NHS Foundation TrustBarts Health NHS TrustGreat Ormond Street Hospital for ChildrenSt Mary's UniversityKing's College LondonMcMaster UniversityUniversity of ChesterCSL BehringSanofiUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisHospital for Sick ChildrenPfizerUniversitair Medisch Centrum UtrechtAmgen
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Elocta ® is an Fc Fusion Protein classified as an extended half-life (EHL) drug for the management of patients with Haemophilia A. Several different laboratory assay methods can be used to monitor Elocta in patient plasma samples.Methods: In a supplementary UK NEQAS BC exercise 4 lyophilised samples containing Elocta were distributed to 81 participating centres.Sample S19:02 was from a patient with severe Haemophilia A treated with Elocta, but prior to sample collection was at a treatment trough level.S19:03 was from a patient with severe Haemophilia A patient, treated with 2000 iu/kg Elocta 15 minutes prior to sample collection.Samples S19:04 and S19.05 were constructed by 'spiking' FVIII deficient plasma, from a severe haemophilia A donor, with Elocta-Sample S19.04 at a level similar to a patient trough level and Sample S19:05 at a level similar to a patient post treatment level.Participants were invited to perform a FVIII assay on each of the four samples using testing methods in regular routine use in their laboratory.Results: Result data was collected from 78 centres for a FVIII assay on all samples, with 56 centres performing a 1-stage FVIII assay and 22 centres performing a Chromogenic FVIII assay.9 participating centres performed both a 1-stage and a Chromogenic FVIII assay.1-stage FVIII: • S19:02 Median results IU/dL = 2.4; Range = 0.82-5 IU/dL CV = 31.1% • S19:03 Median results IU/dL = 56.9;Range = 41.5-77IU/dL, CV = 15% • S19:04 Median results IU/dL = 5.3; Range = 3.16-7 IU/dL, CV = 19.2%• S19:05 Median results IU/dL = 55.7;Range = 40.2-78IU/dL, CV = 14.2%Chromogenic FVIII results: • S19:02 Median results IU/dL = 2.0; Range = 0.5-5 IU/ dL;CV = 58.7%• S19:03 Median results IU/dL = 66.9;Range = 53-103 IU/dL; CV = 14.5% • S19:04 Median results IU/dL = 5.0; Range = 1-11 IU/dL; CV = 36% • S19:05 Median results IU/dL = 71.0;Range = 55-107 IU/dL; CV = 14.8%Discussion/Conclusion: Careful interpretation of patient results is required.Result levels of ≤11 IU/dL for 1-stage FVIII assays were at most ~15% higher compared to chromogenic assays.At higher levels of Elocta, 55-70 IU/dL, Chromogenic assays were at most 20% higher compared to 1-stage FVIII assay results.There were no found differences between in-vitro spiked samples and patient samples, indicating spiked samples to be commutable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7880.671

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaemophiliaSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207