Blood Group O Does Not Increase the Risk of Inhibitors in Severe Haemophilia A: Data from the PedNet Study Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inhibitor development against factor VIII (FVIII) is the most common complication of hemophilia A replacement therapy. One of the variables considered to influence inhibitor development is the ABO blood group. Patients with blood group O have, on average, a 30%-40% lower endogenous von Willebrand factor (VWF) concentration. It has been postulated that VWF levels influence inhibitor development. The objective of this study was to investigate the inhibitor risk in patients with severe hemophilia A comparing those with blood group O with those with non-O blood groups. METHODS: The study population consisted of children with severe hemophilia A, born between 2000 and 2020, who reached 50 FVIII exposure days in the PedNet registry. Inhibitors were considered to be clinically relevant when at least two consecutive measurements were tested positive. RESULTS: Routine testing of blood groups varied between centres: Out of 1172 patients with severe hemophilia A, blood group status was known in 759 patients (65.8%). The relative risk of inhibitor development for blood group O in comparison to non-O was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.7-1.7). CONCLUSION: In the PedNet cohort, blood group O did not increase the risk of inhibitors in previously untreated children with severe hemophilia A. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PedNet Registry; clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02979119.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".