Primary postpartum hemorrhage in women with von Willebrand disease and carriers of hemophilia: a retrospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Between 2002 and 2011, the incidence of severe primary postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in Dutch women with von Willebrand disease (VWD) and hemophilia carriers (HCs) was 8% vs 4.5% in the general population. Objectives: To determine the contemporary incidence of severe primary PPH in women with VWD and HCs. Methods: All women with VWD or HCs who delivered between 2012 and 2017 were selected from all 6 Dutch hemophilia treatment centers. Data on patient and disease characteristics, peripartum hematologic and obstetric management, and outcomes were retrospectively collected. Incidence of severe primary (≥1000 mL of blood loss ≤24 hours after childbirth) and primary (≥500 mL within ≤24 hours after childbirth) PPH was compared with the (1) previous cohort and (2) general Dutch population and between (3) women with VWD and HCs with third-trimester coagulation activity levels <50 international units (IU)/dL vs ≥50 IU/dL and (4) women treated with vs without peripartum hemostatic prophylaxis. Results: = .17). Severe primary PPH risk was comparable between women with coagulation activity levels <50 and ≥50 IU/dL (11% [7/66] vs 10% [29/279]; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.43-2.44) and comparable between those with and those without prophylaxis (12% [11/91] vs 10% [25/254]; odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59-2.68). Conclusion: Severe primary PPH in women with VWD and HCs remained stable and is comparable with the increasing prevalence in the general population. More research is needed to find the optimal pregnancy management strategy for safe delivery in VWD and HC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".