Hemostatic management of von Willebrand disease during childbirth with a plasma-derived von Willebrand factor/factor VIII concentrate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Females with von Willebrand disease (VWD) do not show the same increases in von Willebrand factor and factor (F)VIII levels during pregnancy as females without VWD and are at higher risk of excessive bleeding associated with childbirth. Data on hemostatic management for childbirth in VWD patients are limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the dosing, efficacy, and safety of plasma-derived von Willebrand factor/FVIII (wilate) for prevention of excessive bleeding associated with childbirth in females with any type of VWD. METHODS: Data for females with VWD who received wilate for hemostatic coverage for childbirth during 2 prospective clinical studies were analyzed. RESULTS: Ten females with VWD and a mean age at enrolment of 29.6 years were treated with wilate to prevent excessive bleeding associated with childbirth. Two patients had type 1, 4 had type 2 (2 2A, 1 2B, and 1 2M), and 4 had type 3 VWD. Of the 10 deliveries, 5 were by cesarean section. Patients received a mean of 9.5 infusions of wilate over 6.8 exposure days, with a mean total dose of 234 IU/kg per delivery and 25 IU/kg per infusion. Hemostatic management for all deliveries was rated excellent or good, with no excessive bleeding during delivery and no postpartum bleeding during the period of wilate treatment in any patient. Two patients experienced 8 possible or probable treatment-related adverse events; all were mild or moderate and resolved. No thromboembolic events were observed. CONCLUSION: The results of this case series indicate that wilate provided effective hemostatic cover for childbirth in females with VWD during delivery and postpartum.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".