MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prevalence and characterization of anti-VWF antibodies in a population of patients with type 3 VWD

2024· article· en· W4401209106 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Crystal L. Perry, Pamela A. Christopherson, Tina Agostini, Sandra L. Haberichter, Robert R. Montgomery, Veronica H. Flood

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Medicine, Drexel UniversityUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillSchool of Medicine, Emory UniversityWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNational Institutes of HealthQueen's UniversityWashington University in St. LouisUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteLoma Linda UniversityVanderbilt UniversityDrexel UniversityUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical CenterTulane UniversityUniversity of PittsburghNationwide Children's HospitalRush UniversityJohns Hopkins Children's CenterWayne State UniversityYale UniversityBunning Food Allergy Institute, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of ChicagoNorthwestern UniversityRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandEmory UniversityMichigan State UniversityUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsVon Willebrand factorAntibodyVon Willebrand diseaseImmunologyMedicinePlateletPopulationThromboelastometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: von Willebrand disease (VWD) is an inherited bleeding disorder caused by quantitative or qualitative defects in the von Willebrand factor (VWF) protein. Type 3 VWD has a severe bleeding phenotype caused by the absence of VWF, in which treatment usually involves replacement therapy with VWF-containing products. The immune system can react to the VWF product and form anti-VWF antibodies to neutralize or clear the VWF, which can compromise efficacy of treatment or lead to anaphylaxis. Current diagnostic testing is limited to the detection of anti-VWF antibodies that neutralize VWF binding to platelets by using a ristocetin cofactor assay. We set out to develop assays to identify both neutralizing and nonneutralizing antibodies to screen, quantify, and characterize anti-VWF antibodies in samples from the Zimmerman Program, a large multicenter study of patients with VWD. We detected anti-VWF immunoglobulin G (IgG) or IgM antibodies in 18% of 49 unrelated individuals with type 3 VWD. The antibodies ranged in concentration and consisted of 33% nonneutralizing and 67% neutralizing to factor VIII, collagen III, platelet glycoprotein Ib alpha (GPIbα), and/or collagen IV binding. Of the positive type 3 VWD samples, 8 of 9 were IgG, which were further subclassified into mostly IgG1 and IgG4 antibodies. Through a series of testing methods, we identified VWF-specific antibodies in 9 unrelated individuals with type 3 VWD with varying demographics, bleeding phenotypes, and genetic variants. This anti-VWF antibody testing strategy provides a useful tool to assess risk and better navigate treatment options for patients with type 3 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood AdvancesSame topicPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207