2025 ASH ISTH NBDF WFH monitoring report on the 2021 clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and management of von Willebrand disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The American Society of Hematology (ASH), International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF; now National Bleeding Disorders Foundation), and World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) 2021 guidelines on the diagnosis and management of von Willebrand disease (VWD) included 11 recommendations on the diagnosis of VWD and 12 recommendations on the management of VWD, the most common inherited bleeding disorder. We describe the results of a review of the 2021 guidelines by the clinical co-chairs of the guideline panels requested by ASH to inform decision-making about the need for and timing of a guideline revision. An updated MEDLINE and Embase search applied the same terms as the ASH ISTH NHF WFH 2021 guidelines limited to studies from 2020 to 30 July 2024 (diagnosis) or 24 July 2024 (management). For the diagnosis of VWD, 432 studies were identified and underwent title and abstract review, with 17 undergoing full text review, and for the management of VWD, 288 studies were identified and underwent title and abstract review, with 37 undergoing full text review, to determine whether the data would change the strength or directionality of the existing recommendation or merit development of a new recommendation. Based on this review, the clinical co-chairs noted that none of the reviewed studies would change the direction or strength of the existing guideline recommendations. There will be continued monitoring of the ASH ISTH NHF WFH 2021 guidelines on the diagnosis and management of VWD to evaluate whether there is sufficient new evidence to warrant additional revisions.
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 | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.030 |
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".