Treatment changes in hemophilia A with chromogenic factor VIII assay implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The one-stage assay (OSA) and the chromogenic assay (CSA) are 2 factor VIII (FVIII) assays used for the diagnosis and classification of hemophilia A. Discrepancies between the 2 assays exist in approximately one-third of patients with mild hemophilia A. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to report the proportion of patients with mild or moderate hemophilia A and OSA-CSA discrepancies and to report the observed changes in treatment approach prompted by the presence of assay discrepancy. The study aimed to identify OSA:CSA ratio associated with the highest sensitivity for identification of patients in whom modification of treatment approach may be recommended. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study including adult (>18-year-old) patients with mild or moderate hemophilia A who were followed up at the Adult British Columbia Hemophilia Program between January 2013 and March 2019. Results: 52% of study patients had OSA-CSA discrepancies, and change in treatment approach was observed in 27% of patients with OSA-CSA discrepancy. The OSA:CSA ratio of 1.8 to 3.5 demonstrated the highest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve and sensitivity for identification of patients in which modification of treatment approach may be recommended (AUC 0.75; sensitivity 71%). Conclusion: In our population, OSA-CSA discrepancy was observed in 52% of patients with mild or moderate hemophilia A, and the treatment approach in 27% of these patients had to be modified.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".