ArticleThrombosis and haemostasis2022
Predictive Modeling Identifies Total Bleeds at 12-Weeks Postswitch to N8-GP Prophylaxis as a Predictor of Treatment Response.
Article in Thrombosis and haemostasis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The use of artificial intelligence in the prevention and management of bleeding disorders: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Digital Technologies in Hereditary Coagulation Disorders: A Systematic Review.Hamostaseologie · 2024Pooled it
- Long-term outcomes with emicizumab prophylaxis for haemophilia A in China: A multicentre, large-cohort retrospective study.British journal of haematology · 2026Observational
- Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Hereditary and Acquired Hemophilia: From Genomics to Treatment Optimization.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPredicting annualized bleeding rate (ABR) during factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis for severe hemophilia A (SHA) is important for long-term outcomes. This study used supervised machine learning-based predictive modeling to identify predictors of long-term ABR during prophylaxis with an extended half-life FVIII.
methodsData were from 166 SHA patients who received N8-GP prophylaxis (50 IU/kg every 4 days) in the pathfinder 2 study. Predictive models were developed to identify variables associated with an ABR of ≤1 versus >1 during the trial's main phase (median follow-up of 469 days). Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC). Pre-N8-GP prophylaxis models learned from data collected at baseline; post-N8-GP prophylaxis models learned from data collected up to 12-weeks postswitch to N8-GP, and predicted ABR at the end of the outcome period (final year of treatment in the main phase).
resultsThe predictive model using baseline variables had moderate performance (AUROC = 0.64) for predicting observed ABR. The most performant model used data collected at 12-weeks postswitch (AUROC = 0.79) with cumulative bleed count up to 12 weeks as the most informative variable, followed by baseline von Willebrand factor and mean FVIII at 30 minutes postdose. Univariate cumulative bleed count at 12 weeks performed equally well to the 12-weeks postswitch model (AUROC = 0.75). Pharmacokinetic measures were indicative, but not essential, to predict ABR.
conclusionCumulative bleed count up to 12-weeks postswitch was as informative as the 12-week post-switch predictive model for predicting long-term ABR, supporting alterations in prophylaxis based on treatment response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.