MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406146939 · doi:10.51731/cjht.25.1053

Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy)

2025· article· en· W4406146939 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
CDA-AMC

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThalassemiaMedicineHematologistBeta thalassemiaRed CellMalignancyPediatricsHematopoietic stem cellHemoglobinopathyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationInternal medicineStem cellTransplantationHaematopoiesisHemolytic anemiaBiologyGeneticsDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC) recommends that Casgevy be reimbursed by public drug plans for the treatment of transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia (TDT) if certain conditions are met. Casgevy should only be covered to treat patients 12 years of age and older with a diagnosis of TDT (defined as documented homozygous or compound heterozygous beta-thalassemia, and having received transfusions of packed red blood cells [RBCs] of at least 100mL/kg/year, or 10 units/year, during the previous 2 years), who meet specific Karnofsky (patients 16 years or older) or Lansky (patients under 16 years of age) performance status thresholds, who are eligible for autologous stem cell transplant, do not have an available and willing 10/10 HLA-matched related donor, have not previously received allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) or prior gene editing therapy or gene editing products, and who do not have any of the following: associated alpha thalassemia and 1 or more alpha deletions or alpha multiplications, prior or current history of malignancy, or sickle cell beta-thalassemia variant. Casgevy should only be reimbursed if prescribed by a hematologist with expertise in TDT, if it is not a re-treatment (Casgevy is a 1-time treatment), and the cost of Casgevy is reduced.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207