A decreased and less sustained desmopressin response in hemophilia A carriers contributes to bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The cause of hemophilia A carrier bleeding is not well established. Desmopressin (DDAVP), used clinically to treat or prevent bleeding, can also be used as a medical stress surrogate. This study’s objective was to compare the response to DDAVP in hemophilia A carriers with that in normal control patients. Bleeding was assessed by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis Bleeding Assessment Tool (ISTH-BAT). DDAVP (0.3 μg/kg) was administered either IV or subcutaneously (SC), and blood was drawn at baseline and 1, 2, and 4 hours postadministration. Blood was assessed for factor VIII (FVIII) level, von Willebrand factor (VWF) antigen (VWF:Ag), VWF activity (VWF:RCo or VWF:GPIbM), thromboelastography (TEG), and thrombin generation assay (TGA) at all points, and for VWF propeptide (VWFpp):Ag ratio and ABO blood type at baseline. Carriers were older than control patients (median age, 34 and 21 years, respectively; P = .003) and had higher ISTH-BAT bleeding scores (median bleeding score, 8 and 0, respectively; P = .001). Carriers had a significantly reduced FVIII response to DDAVP compared with control patients (P ≤ .0001). When only carriers with normal baseline FVIII levels (n = 10) were included, carriers maintained a reduced FVIII response (P ≤ .0001). Furthermore, participants with abnormal bleeding scores had a significantly lower FVIII response to DDAVP compared with those with normal bleeding scores (P = .036). Hemophilia A carriers have a lower and less sustained FVIII response to DDAVP, suggesting an impaired ability to respond to hemostatic stress, which contributes to bleeding.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".