PB1226 Acquired Haemophilia A in Finland: A Nationwide Study of Incidence, Treatment and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods: Inhibitor concentration of ≥0.6 was defined as positive for NBA.Residual activity was measured with a one-stage FVIII assay using SynthasIL and HemosIL calibration plasma (Werfen, Barcelona).For patients on emicizumab residual FVIII activity was measured with a chromogenic assay using bovine reagents (Coamatic, Chromogenix, Werfen).ELISA was performed with Lifecodes factor VIII antibody screen (Immucor, Paris, France).Results: A total of 44 samples from 10 patients with AHA were analyzed with both NBA and ELISA.Results were concordant for 31 samples with both techniques: 26 were positive and 5 negative.For 10 samples we had a discrepancy with positive NBA (0.6-18.3 BU) and negative ELISA.These samples were issued from 5 different patients.One patient was never positive with ELISA during the course of his disease (lupus anticoagulant was ruled out).For the other 4 patients discrepant results were only seen during follow-up and not at diagnosis.In three samples (from 2 patients) a borderline NBA (0.4-0.5 BU) with a weak positive ELISA was seen.Table: Distribution of negative and positive inhibitor samples for the Nijmegen Bethesda assay and the anti-FVIII ELISA.Conclusion(s): In our small patient group with AHA we saw several discrepant results between NBA and anti-FVIII ELISA.NBA was often positive with a negative ELISA.In the majority of patients this was seen in follow-up samples.These results should be taken into consideration when deciding which assay to perform for the detection of FVIII inhibitors.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".