MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403554476 · doi:10.1016/j.htct.2024.09.975

PROPHYLAXIS FOR INHERITED DEFICIENCY OF FACTOR X (PROTECT-X): A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2024· review· en· W4403554476 on OpenAlex
VJP Ferreira, Ângela Costa, RM Camelo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHematology Transfusion and Cell Therapy · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hereditary factor X (FX) deficiency (FXD) is a rare autosomal recessive bleeding disorder. The reduced or absent plasma FX clotting activity leads to spontaneous hemorrhages or bleeds after minor trauma. FXD severity varies among mild (FX 6%‒10%), moderate (FX 1%‒5%), and severe (FX < 1%), and the bleeding risk is inversely proportional to the residual plasma FX clotting activity. Therapy is based on treating (episodic) or avoiding (prophylaxis) bleeds with clotting agents, such as fresh frozen plasma, Prothrombin Complex Concentrate (PCC) or partially activated PCC, and exogenous FX replacement. We performed a literature systematic review to evaluate the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of prophylaxis against bleeds in people with FXD (PwFXD) compared to exclusive episodic treatment or prophylaxis with a different clotting agent. The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024535021) and is under conduction based on the PRISMA 2020 statement. Literature assessment was performed on 06/05/2024 based on strategic search directed to specific databases (PubMed, Embase, and LILACS). No language nor publication period were used as restrictions. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, observational studies (prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, and cross-sectional), and case reports that evaluated the prophylaxis in PwFXD were included. Any publication reporting on prophylaxis in PwFXD was included. Reports on prophylaxis during surgical procedures were excluded. In addition, prophylaxis-referenced citations from the included publications and from the excluded reviews published within the previous 10 years were evaluated for eligibility. In addition to metadata, we will extract data on bleeds, clotting agent consumption, quality of life, and adverse events (e.g., death, discontinuation of treatment, and development of anti-FX antibodies). Meta-analysis will be performed when feasible. Study quality and risk of bias evaluation will be performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The literature database search and the manual citations search retrieved 4,409 and 134 records, respectively. After selection according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 26 publications were included. The included publications were published from 1992 to 2024, only in English. The studies were performed mainly in Europe and North America. Designs comprised interventional (6, 23.1%) studies, observational (9, 34.6%), and case reports/series (11, 42.3%). Of 413 participants described, 395 (96%) were PwFXD, of whom 117 (29%) received prophylaxis. Final data will be reported in the congress. It is expected that our findings contribute to the management of PwFXD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it