Pregnancy loss in women with von Willebrand disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
: The risk of pregnancy loss in von Willebrand disease (VWD) has been inconsistently reported. Von Willebrand factor (VWF) is a known regulator of angiogenesis, so has the potential to affect placental function. We sought to determine the risk of pregnancy loss and placenta-mediated pregnancy complications in women with VWD, compared with women without VWD. Women with VWD followed in the Southern Alberta Rare Blood and Bleeding Disorders Clinic were invited to participate in a questionnaire (February-June 2014). The same questionnaire was sent to women without VWD identified in a low-risk obstetrical clinic in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The primary outcome was the proportion of pregnancies that ended in pregnancy loss. Secondary outcomes were preeclampsia, fetal growth restriction, placental abruption, and preterm labor less than 37 weeks gestation. Of the 30 (31.6%) VWD participants that responded, 26 (86.7%) were diagnosed with Type 1 VWD, of which 11 (42.3%) had VWF antigen or activity levels less than 30%. In women with VWD, there were 20 pregnancy losses out of 80 pregnancies [25.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 16.81-35.48], compared with eight losses out of 50 pregnancies in the control group (16.0%, 95% CI, 8.34-28.51; P = 0.28). There was no difference in the risk of preeclampsia (1.7 versus 0%, P = 1.00) or preterm labor (16.7 versus 7.1%, P = 0.23) among VWD and control groups. There were no other placenta-mediated pregnancy complications reported. There is no significant difference in pregnancy loss between women with and without VWD; however, a large multicenter study is needed to clarify the risk of pregnancy loss in women with VWD.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".