Bibliographic record
Abstract

 CADTH recommends that Cablivi should not be reimbursed by public drug plans for the treatment of adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) in combination with plasma exchange (PE) and immunosuppressive therapy.
 Evidence from clinical trials were unable to demonstrate that Cablivi improved survival and quality of life, minimized organ damage, or prevented long-term aTTP recurrence. Although results showed that Cablivi reduced time to platelet normalization compared with placebo in patients with aTTP who received PE and immunosuppressive therapy, CADTH Canadian Drug Expert Committee was unable to determine how this correlated with the previously mentioned clinical outcomes.
 Evidence from an integrated analysis of clinical trials and several sources of real-world evidence were unable to clearly demonstrate whether Cablivi provides benefits when added to PE and immunosuppressive therapy due to limitations associated with the methodology.
 Based on the evidence reviewed, it remains uncertain whether Cablivi meets the needs identified by patients of improving survival and quality of life, preventing disease complications, reducing the need for PE, and preventing disease recurrence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".