Controversies in the diagnosis of Type 1 von Willebrand disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common bleeding disorder. Type 1 VWD represents the majority of cases and results from a partial quantitative deficiency of von Willebrand factor (VWF). The diagnosis of Type 1 VWD presents many challenges, despite there being three established diagnostic criteria: a personal history of mucocutaneous bleeding, a family history and low VWF levels. These criteria do not always coexist, and there is great overlap of clinical phenotypes and laboratory parameters between healthy individuals and those with VWD. Mild bleeding symptoms can have any number of causes and bleeding is commonly reported in the general population. VWF levels do not always correlate with bleeding symptoms and can be variable between affected family members. Additionally, VWF levels vary widely as a result of both genetic and non-genetic influences. Perhaps the greatest current controversy in the diagnosis of Type 1 VWD is that there is no consensus laboratory cut-off for the diagnosis, raising concern about both over- and under-diagnosis. Ongoing studies are addressing these issues by clarifying the underlying pathogenesis of the disease, as well as the natural history and the risk of future bleeding in those with the diagnosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".