MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406146972 · doi:10.51731/cjht.25.1052

Exagamglogene Autotemcel (Casgevy)

2025· article· en· W4406146972 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
KeywordsMedicineHematologistInternal medicineDiseaseTranscranial DopplerStem cellHematopoietic stem cell transplantationOncologyPediatricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC) recommends that Casgevy be reimbursed by public drug plans for the treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD) with recurrent vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs), if certain conditions are met. Casgevy should only be covered to treat patients aged 12 years or older with a diagnosis of severe SCD (defined as documented severe SCD genotype and a history of at least 2 severe VOC events each year for the last 2 years). Patients aged 12 to 16 years must have normal transcranial Doppler (TCD) velocity in the middle cerebral artery and the internal carotid artery. Patients aged 12 to 18 years should not have had 2 or more abnormal TCD results. Patients also need to meet specific performance status criteria, be eligible for an autologous stem cell transplant, not have a willing 10/10 HLA-matched related donor available, and should not have previously received an allogenic-hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) or gene therapy. Additionally, patients must not have a history of cancer or significant immune disorders. Casgevy should only be reimbursed if prescribed by a hematologist with expertise in SCD, if it is not a re-treatment (Casgevy is a one-time treatment), and if 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0850.023

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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