Technological advances in diagnostic testing for von Willebrand disease: new approaches and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnostic tests for von Willebrand disease (VWD) are important for the assessment of VWD, which is a commonly encountered bleeding disorder worldwide. Technical innovations have been applied to improve the precision and lower limit of detection of von Willebrand factor (VWF) assays, including the ristocetin cofactor activity assay (VWF:RCo) that uses the antibiotic ristocetin to induce plasma VWF binding to glycoprotein (GP) IbIXV on target platelets. VWF-collagen-binding assays, depending on the type of collagen used, can improve the detection of forms of VWD with high molecular weight VWF multimer loss, although the best method is debatable. A number of innovations have been applied to VWF:RCo (which is commonly performed on an aggregometer), including replacing the target platelets with immobilized GPIbα, and quantification by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), immunoturbidimetric, or chemiluminescent end-point. Some common polymorphisms in the VWF gene that do not cause bleeding are associated with falsely low VWF activity by ristocetin-dependent methods. To overcome the need for ristocetin, some new VWF activity assays use gain-of-function GPIbα mutants that bind VWF without the need for ristocetin, with an improved precision and lower limit of detection than measuring VWF:RCo by aggregometry. ELISA of VWF binding to mutated GPIbα shows promise as a method to identify gain-of-function defects from type 2B VWD. The performance characteristics of many new VWF activity assays suggest that the detection of VWD, and monitoring of VWD therapy, by clinical laboratories could be improved through adopting newer generation VWF assays.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".