Understanding FVIII/VWF complex – report from a symposium of XXIX WFH meeting 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
von Willebrand factor (VWF) has the capacity to form a complex with factor VIII (FVIII) which may modulate the immunogenicity of FVIII. It has been proposed that a significant fraction of recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) is unable to bind VWF. In an experimental model studied at the McMaster University in Canada, this VWF-unbound rFVIII fraction showed no coagulant function. Sulphation of FVIII tyrosine (Tyr) 1680 has been reported as essential for the interaction with VWF. In a study performed at the Grifols and CNS-CSIC in Spain, Tyr1680 sulphation was observed to be incomplete in rFVIII and complete in plasma-derived FVIII (pdFVIII). This could explain the incapability of some rFVIII molecules to bind VWF. Experience with immune tolerance induction (ITI) at the Bonn Haemophilia Centre indicates that only eradication of FVIII inhibitors allows safe haemostasis control and the option of prophylactic treatment. Various clinical trials were planned to evaluate the clinical role VWF-containing FVIII concentrates (FVIII/VWF). RES.I.ST (an acronym for REScue Immunotolerance STudy) is an international, prospective study aimed at assessing whether FVIII/VWF can induce ITI in high-risk haemophilia patients (RES.I.ST naïve) and whether patients who previously failed ITI with FVIII alone can be rescued with FVIII/VWF (RES.I.ST experienced). Enrolment started in November 2009. In the FAIReSt.Will (Fanhdi and Alphanate Italian Retrospective Study in Willebrand disease) study, 120 von Willebrand disease (VWD) patients treated with Fanhdi(®) or Alphanate(®) were retrospectively analysed. Efficacy was excellent and no side effects were reported. The ongoing PRO.Will study is a prospective, multicenter trial aimed at assessing the efficacy, safety and pharmacoeconomics of secondary long-term prophylaxis in patients with severe inherited VWD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.020 |
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".