Mild or moderate hemophilia is not always a mild or moderate bleeding disorder: Back to the clinical phenotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a previous paper, a comprehensive clinicopathologic approach to mild and moderate bleeding disorders (MBD) was proposed by an international working group (IWG) as a part of a project promoted by the European Hematology Association (EHA) on the development of guidelines on the various MBDs. A single pre-diagnosis grade 4 bleeding event according to the ISTH-BAT scale or a comparable event after diagnosis was considered sufficient to classify a patient as affected by a severe bleeding disorder (SBD). In this article, the original IWG integrated by experts and patients' representatives proposed by the European Haemophilia Consortium (EHC) and European Association of Haemophilia and Allied Disorders (EAHAD) applied these criteria to mild and moderate hemophilia A and B to establish the proportion of cases that would be reclassified as SBD taking into account bleeding phenotype, thus improving over the current classification based exclusively on basal factor VIII or IX level. To this aim, publications of unselected cases with bleeding history available from birth to the time of publication were considered to estimate the incidence of a first severe bleeding event. More than 20% of cases with mild or moderate hemophilia met the criteria for SBD by experiencing joint or non-joint severe bleeding events. Furthermore, a significant proportion of patients developed an inhibitor against factor VIII or IX. These results, based on a rigorous methodologic approach, substantiate the criticism of the current classification of hemophilia and argue for the adoption of a new classification that takes into account bleeding phenotype in addition to basal clotting activity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".