A survey of the management of newborns with severe hemophilia in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the practice patterns of Canadian hematologists and neonatologists/paediatricians who care for newborns with hemophilia, with regard to vitamin K administration, use of empirical clotting factor replacement therapy, neuroimaging and timing of hematology consultation. METHODS: Hematologists and neonatologists/paediatricians, identified from membership lists of Canadian professional organizations, were provided electronic and/or paper versions of the survey instrument. Questions were posed in the context of specific clinical scenarios. Differences in response proportions between groups were compared for selected questions. RESULTS: There were 171 respondents among 616 eligible persons who were sent the survey; 58 respondents had recent experience managing a newborn with hemophilia. There was a consensus not to provide empirical treatment to well newborns after uncomplicated deliveries, to provide empirical treatment to symptomatic newborns and to obtain neuroimaging for symptomatic newborns. Systematic differences between hematologists and neonatologists/paediatricians existed with regard to the timing of hematology consultation when the diagnosis of hemophilia had not been confirmed antenatally, the route of vitamin K administration for newborns with hemophilia and the choice of product to use for empirical treatment of a symptomatic newborn. CONCLUSIONS: The observed lack of consensus regarding important management decisions indicates a need for ongoing research in the care of newborns with hemophilia. Systematic differences between hematologists and neonatologists/paediatricians suggest a role for improved communication and collaboration between these two groups of practitioners.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".