MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Applying Diagnostic Criteria for Type 1 von Willebrand Disease to a Pediatric Population.

2007· article· en· W2578863070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah A. Hyatt, Wei Wang, Bryce A. Kerlin, Sarah H. O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVon Willebrand diseasePopulationPlatelet disorderPediatricsRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineVon Willebrand factorPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Although type 1 von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common bleeding disorder seen by pediatric hematologists, making a definitive diagnosis continues to be a challenge in clinical practice. Both the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) and the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto (HSC) have proposed diagnostic criteria for type 1 VWD. These include abnormal laboratory values, significant mucocutaneous bleeding, and/or a positive family history. Most recently, the ISTH published updated recommendations, which differed only in the requirement of more abnormal laboratory results (VWF:Ag 5–20 IU/ml). We applied ISTH and HSC criteria, as well as updated ISTH criteria, to a large population of pediatric patients diagnosed with type 1 VWD. We hypothesized that a substantial number of patients would not meet either HSC or ISTH diagnostic criteria. Methods: We performed a retrospective medical record review of all type 1 VWD patients at our Hemostasis and Thrombosis Center. We evaluated each record for bleeding history, family history, and laboratory values. Frequencies of fit for HSC, ISTH and updated ISTH criteria were calculated. Mean VWF:Ag, VWF:RCo, and bleeding scores (Rodeghiero et al, J Thromb Haemost, 2006) were compared across populations meeting each proposed criteria. Results: Of 201 patients, 33.9% met the HSC definition of “definitive” type 1 VWD, 4.5% met ISTH definition, and 0% met updated ISTH definition. An additional 56.2% (HSC), 15.4% (ISTH), and 6% (updated ISTH) met definitions of “possible” type 1 VWD. For each proposed definition, criteria for significant mucocutaneous bleeding were most likely to be met, while criteria for abnormal laboratory values were least likely. In fact, 74% of patients had significant bleeding as defined by the HSC (56% as defined by ISTH). We did find significant clinical and laboratory differences between patients labeled as definite, possible, and normal by ISTH and HSC criteria. For example, patients meeting criteria for definite disease by HSC criteria had a mean bleeding score of 3.5 and mean VWF:Ag of 31 IU/ml, compared to 2.6 and 47 IU/ml in patients labeled as possible, and 2.2 and 68 IU/ml in patients labeled as normal (p=0.001 bleeding score, <0.001 mean VWF:Ag). Regardless of whether they met any set of criteria, most patients (94%) received some type of medical intervention (pre-operative or therapeutic desmopressin or VWF replacement). Discussion: We found that the majority of our pediatric type 1 VWD patients did not meet the original ISTH definition of definite or even possible type 1 VWD, thus confirming in a larger population the findings of HSC investigators (Dean et al, Thromb Haemost, 2000). In addition, we have demonstrated that the new ISTH criteria are even more inappropriate for clinical practice in a pediatric population, with 0% of patients meeting criteria for definite disease. Therefore, these criteria failed to identify a substantial number of children and adolescents who presented to medical attention, had significant mucocutaneous bleeding, and required therapeutic interventions. The new ISTH criteria may be an excellent scientific tool for identifying a narrow, severely affected population of patients likely to have autosomal dominant VWD mutations. However, they do not appear to have clinical validity in the pediatric setting.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments→French-language works237,207→