MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Prevalence of von Willebrand Disease in the Primary Care Setting.

2005· article· en· W2560196217 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mackenzie Bowman, Paula James, Marshall Godwin, D. RAPSON, David Lillicrap

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVon Willebrand diseasePediatricsReferralContext (archaeology)EpidemiologyPopulationPrevalenceDiseaseHaemophiliaVon Willebrand factorFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Von Willebrand Disease (VWD), the most common inherited bleeding disorder in humans, results from a deficiency or abnormal functioning of von Willebrand factor (VWF). The most widely accepted estimate of VWD prevalence in the literature is 1%, which is derived from epidemiological studies performed in the USA and Italy. However, both of these studies were based on investigations of healthy, school aged children without overt bleeding symptoms. In contrast, the prevalence of symptomatic VWD has been estimated to be approximately 1 in 10,000 based on patients referred to specialized bleeding clinics. The discrepancy between these prevalence figures has not been explained and requires further investigation. This uncertainty is further complicated by a lack of consensus concerning the frequency of bleeding symptoms in the normal population. VWD can cause a range of symptoms from mild bruising to significant mucocutaneous bleeding. Such symptoms are often presented to primary care physicians by their patients but are not always significant enough to prompt a referral to a specialist. Thus, the primary care setting provides a unique context for assessing the prevalence of symptomatic VWD. The objective of the present study is to perform a prospective assessment of the prevalence of symptomatic VWD in the primary care setting. The on-going study has been carried out since September 2004 in four primary care clinics in the Kingston, Ontario area. Patients of all ages were approached in the waiting rooms of the clinics and asked if they had ever experienced problems with bleeding or bruising. Those that were significantly concerned by their symptoms and not aware of the cause of their bruising or bleeding (e.g. oral anticoagulant therapy) were then eligible to complete a detailed standardized bleeding questionnaire adapted from that used in the recent European multicenter type 1 VWD study (MCMDM-1VWD). The questionnaires were scored in terms of the severity and frequency of the following symptoms: epistaxis, bruising, oral cavity bleeding, post-dental extraction bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, post-operative bleeding, menorrhagia, post-partum hemorrhaging, hemarthrosis and central nervous system bleeding. Subjects with a positive score of five or greater on the questionnaire were then sent for VWD laboratory studies on two separate occasions, at least 4–6 weeks apart. To date, 5,000 patients have been approached and asked if they have ever experienced problems with bruising or bleeding. Of those, approximately 11% reported problems with bruising or bleeding, a number significantly lower than the 25% reported in the literature. Only 104 patients reported significant symptoms and 45 people went on to complete the bleeding questionnaire. Approximately 53% of the subjects had a positive bleeding score leading to laboratory investigations for VWD. Of the subjects that have had blood work performed, we have made a new diagnosis of type I VWD in one individual. As well, three patients approached at the clinics had been previously diagnosed with VWD. Therefore, the prevalence of symptomatic VWD in the primary care setting evaluated thus far in this study is 0.08%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207