Intensive FVIII replacement in hemophilia patients with hypertrophic synovium: a randomized study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic synovium (HS) is a marker of disease activity in persons with hemophilia (PwH). Although some recommendations suggest intensifying prophylaxis in PwH with HS, no validated schedules are available. OBJECTIVES: We explored the efficacy of intensive factor VIII (FVIII) replacement treatment in PwH with HS. METHODS: In a randomized, open-label study, PwH with HS were randomized to receive pharmacokinetics-driven prophylaxis targeting a FVIII trough level of 8% to 12% (intensive treatment arm [ITA]) or 3% to 5% (standard treatment arm [STA]). The primary outcome was HS reduction/resolution in the 2 treatment arms. RESULTS: A total of 39 PwH were randomized to ITA and 36 to STA. During the study, we found a lower annual bleeding rate and a higher rate of annual bleeding rate zero in the ITA than in the STA. HS reduction/resolution was reported in 35.9% of cases in the ITA and 8.4% in the STA. In detail, in the ITA ,10.3% achieved HS reduction and 25.6% complete HS resolution, as compared to 5.6% and 2.8% in the STA. Cox regression showed that ITA was associated with HS reduction/resolution (hazard ratio: 4.75; 95% CI: 1.36-16.57; P = .014) and HS complete resolution (hazard ratio: 10.79; 95% CI: 1.38-84.45; P = .023). The analysis of the 127 joints with HS (54 elbows, 41 knees, and 32 ankles) consistently confirmed similar results. CONCLUSION: In this randomized study, we found a ∼5-fold higher rate of HS reduction/resolution and a ∼10-fold higher rate of HS resolution in the ITA than in the STA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".