Consensus guidelines for diagnosis and management of anemia in epidermolysis bullosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anemia is a common complication of severe forms of epidermolysis bullosa (EB). To date, there are no guidelines outlining best clinical practices to manage anemia in the EB population. The objective of this manuscript is to present the first consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of anemia in EB. RESULTS: Due to the lack of high-quality evidence, a consensus methodology was followed. An initial survey exploring patient preferences, concerns and symptoms related to anemia was sent to EB patients and their family members. A second survey was distributed to EB experts and focused on screening, diagnosis, monitoring and management of anemia in the different types of EB. Information from these surveys was collated and used by the panel to generate 26 consensus statements. Consensus statements were sent to healthcare providers that care for EB patients through EB-Clinet. Statements that received more than 70% approval (completely agree/agree) were adopted. CONCLUSIONS: The end result was a series of 6 recommendations which include 20 statements that will help guide management of anemia in EB patients. In patients with moderate to severe forms of EB, the minimum desirable level of Hb is 100 g/L. Treatment should be individualized. Dietary measures should be offered as part of management of anemia in all EB patients, oral iron supplementation should be used for mild anemia; while iron infusion is reserved for moderate to severe anemia, if Hb levels of > 80-100 g/L (8-10 g/dL) and symptomatic; and transfusion should be administered if Hb is < 80 g/L (8 g/dL) in adults and < 60 g/L (6 g/dL) in children.
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 | 0.083 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".