Life in the shadow of a dominant partner: the FVIII-VWF association and its clinical implications for hemophilia A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A normal hemostatic response to vascular injury requires both factor VIII (FVIII) and von Willebrand factor (VWF). In plasma, VWF and FVIII normally circulate as a noncovalent complex, and each has a critical function in the maintenance of hemostasis. Furthermore, the interaction between VWF and FVIII plays a crucial role in FVIII function, immunogenicity, and clearance, with VWF essentially serving as a chaperone for FVIII. Several novel recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) therapies for hemophilia A have been in clinical development, which aim to increase the half-life of FVIII (∼12 hours) and reduce dosing frequency by utilizing bioengineering techniques including PEGylation, Fc fusion, and single-chain design. However, these approaches have achieved only moderate increases in half-life of 1.5- to 2-fold compared with marketed FVIII products. Clearance of PEGylated rFVIII, rFVIIIFc, and rVIII-SingleChain is still regulated to a large extent by interaction with VWF. Therefore, the half-life of VWF (∼15 hours) appears to be the limiting factor that has confounded attempts to extend the half-life of rFVIII. A greater understanding of the interaction between FVIII and VWF is required to drive novel bioengineering strategies for products that either prolong the survival of VWF or limit VWF-mediated clearance of FVIII.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".