Classification of recombinant factor VIII products and implications for clinical practice: A systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Consensus over the definition of recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) product classification in haemophilia A is lacking. rFVIII products are often classified as standard half-life (SHL) or extended half-life (EHL); despite this, no universally accepted definition currently exists. One proposed definition includes half-life, area under the curve, and technology designed to extend half-life; however, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis defines activity over time as the most intuitive information for building treatment regimens and the World Federation of Hemophilia describes rFVIII product classification in terms of infusion frequency. AIM: To summarise published data on the clinical and pharmacokinetic criteria used to define rFVIII product classification. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE database searches of English-language articles (2002-2022) were conducted using search strings to identify the relevant population, intervention, and outcomes (e.g., clinical and pharmacokinetic parameters). Articles then underwent title/abstract and full-text screens. RESULTS: Among 1147 identified articles, 62 were included. Half-life was the most widely reported outcome with no clear trends or product groupings observed. No clear groupings emerged among other outcomes, including infusion frequency, consumption, and efficacy. As activity over time was reported in few articles, further investigation of its relevance to rFVIII product classification is warranted. CONCLUSION: The findings of this systematic literature review suggest that parameters other than half-life might be important for the development of a comprehensive and clinically relevant rFVIII product classification definition. There seems to be an opportunity to consider parameters that are clinically meaningful and useful for shared decision-making in haemophilia A treatment.
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 | 0.017 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".