MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6893216557 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.15380123

Perspectives and Insights on Antihemorrhagic Drugs: From Development to Submission of New Drug Submission (NDS) to Health Canada

2025· article· en· W6893216557 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStability and Control of Uncertain Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosingClotting factorOff-label useDrugPharmacovigilanceDrug approvalAdverse effectDrug developmentQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hemophilia A and B, characterized by deficiencies in clotting factors VIII and IX, respectively, pose significant challenges due to spontaneous bleeding episodes that impair quality of life. Traditional factor replacement therapies, while effective, are limited by short half-lives, intravenous administration, and inhibitor risks. Emerging non-factor antihemorrhagic drugs, such as marstacimab, concizumab, fitusiran, SerpinPC, and Mim8, offer innovative prophylactic solutions for patients without inhibitors. These therapies utilize novel mechanisms, including inhibition of natural anticoagulants and factor VIII mimetic activity, enabling subcutaneous delivery and extended dosing intervals. This article explores their clinical applications, chemical properties, packaging, safety profiles, and regulatory pathways for New Drug Submission (NDS) in Canada. By integrating emerging technologies and addressing regulatory considerations, these therapies promise to transform hemophilia care, with recommendations for robust post-market surveillance and equitable access (Ozelo & Yamaguti-Hayakawa, 2022; Mannucci, 2023).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
GenreReview

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 venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicStability and Control of Uncertain SystemsFrench-language works237,207