Desmopressin (DDAVP) Responsiveness in Children With von Willebrand Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the pattern and predictors of response to desmopressin (DDAVP) in children with von Willebrand disease (VWD). METHODS: The authors reviewed the hospital records of all children with type 1 (n = 70) and type 2A (n = 5) VWD who were followed in the institution's Bleeding Disorders Clinic from January 1989 to June 2001 and who had a DDAVP challenge test after diagnosis. The major outcome evaluated was response to DDAVP, defined as an increase of greater than twofold over baseline of von Willebrand factor, ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo), and factor VIII coagulant (FVIII:C) and levels above 0.3 IU/mL. RESULTS: Response to DDAVP was observed in 56 (80%) of the 70 children with type 1 VWD. Age and baseline VWF:RCo and FVIII:C levels were positively associated with DDAVP response. A total of 36 children (28 responders, 8 nonresponders) with type 1 VWD were treated for bleeding episodes or for prophylaxis; of these 75% (6/8) of the nonresponders compared with 7% (2/28) of the responders to a DDAVP challenge test received blood component therapy (P < 0.01). One of the five children with type 2A VWD responded to DDAVP. CONCLUSIONS: DDAVP challenge tests are recommended in children with newly diagnosed VWD to identify responders in whom DDAVP may be used for the prevention or treatment of bleeding, thus avoiding exposure to blood products. The association of DDAVP response with age merits further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".