Systematic Analysis of Bleeding Phenotype in PT-VWD Compared to Type 2B VWD Using an Electronic Bleeding Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of an electronic version of the condensed molecular and clinical markers for the diagnosis and management of type 1 von Willebrand disease (VWD) bleeding questionnaire (eBQ) in assessing the bleeding phenotype in platelet-type VWD (PT-VWD) and compare it to its closely similar disorder, type 2B VWD. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the clinical bleeding and laboratory phenotype of 13 patients with PT-VWD and 12 type 2B VWD. RESULTS: Bleeding score (BS) was significantly lower in PT-VWD as compared to type 2B. Bleeding score correlated with platelet count and von Willebrand factor:Ristocetin cofactor activity in PT-VWD but not in type 2B with a significant reduction in platelet count in type 2B VWD compared to PT-VWD. The eBQ had sensitivity of 62% in PT-VWD and 92% in type 2B VWD. CONCLUSION: Objective analysis of bleeding symptoms further the understanding of the phenotype of 2 closely similar bleeding disorders for better diagnosis and follow-up. Larger international prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the utility of the eBQ in PT-VWD and other rare bleeding disorders.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".