von Willebrand disease: Clinical and laboratory lessons learned from the large von Willebrand disease studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past 25 years, our knowledge concerning the pathogenesis, diagnostic strategies, and treatment of von Willebrand disease (VWD) has increased significantly. Following the immunological differentiation of factor VIII (FVIII) and von Willebrand factor (VWF) in the 1970s and the cloning of the FVIII and VWF genes in the mid-1980s, substantial progress has been made in our understanding of this, the most common inherited bleeding disorder. We now recognize that VWD represents a range of genetic diseases all with the clinical endpoint of increased mucocutaneous bleeding. The molecular pathology of Type 2 and 3 VWD is now comprehensively documented and involves rare sequence variants at the VWF locus. In contrast, the genetic causation of Type 1 disease remains incompletely defined and in many cases appears to involve genetic determinants in addition to or instead of VWF. The diagnostic triad of a personal history of excessive mucocutaneous bleeding, laboratory tests for VWF that are consistent with VWD, and a family history of the condition remain the keystone to VWD identification. In the laboratory, measurement of VWF antigen and function continue to be the most important diagnostic studies, and while our understanding of the molecular genetic pathology of VWD has advanced considerably in the past decade, genetic testing as a component of diagnosis is limited to certain distinct subtypes of the disorder. Treatment of VWD has been relatively unchanged for the past decade and continues to involve either stimulation of the release of intrinsic VWF with desmopressin or the infusion of VWF concentrates.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".