Standardization of Terminology, Definitions, and Outcome Criteria for Bleeding in Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia: International Consensus Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT, Osler-Weber-Rendu disease) is the second most common inherited bleeding disorder worldwide, affecting approximately 1 in 5000 people. Development of disease-modifying and efficacious hemostatic agents to treat HHT has finally begun after decades without such medical therapies. However, the lack of consensus on standardized severity definitions, outcome criteria, and terminology remains a major obstacle to clinical investigation and therapeutic development in HHT. Additionally, with the ongoing repurposing of antiangiogenic agents and emerging development of novel HHT-specific therapies, comparative clinical trials are expected in the future. Therefore, to end the problematic heterogeneity hindering these efforts, the Global Research and Medical Advisory Board (GRMAB) of the Cure HHT Foundation, an international group of recognized HHT experts, convened a conference of expert HHT clinician-investigators from within GRMAB as well as invited external experts in HHT and bleeding disorders generally, patients with HHT, and patient advocates to define standard terminology and definitions for outcomes and severity classification for bleeding and anemia in HHT. These criteria and definitions should be adopted by regulators, investigators, and the pharmaceutical industry in the development and performance of interventional clinical trials and cohort studies to allow improved comparability between clinical trials, facilitate communication between clinicians and investigators, improve therapeutic guideline development, and provide a standardized framework for regulatory agencies. SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: Evidence for this report was systematically identified and evaluated utilizing two search strategies in Ovid MEDLINE, described in full detail in the Appendix, pp.4-13. The searches were conducted on January 7, 2025. The titles and abstracts of each record were reviewed, and the inclusion criteria were applied to all search results to identify full text articles to be retrieved for further review. All retrieved full texts were then reviewed to reach a final determination if a study met the inclusion criteria. Included references were then compiled into evidence tables, which were then utilized by the International Consensus Report Working Group throughout the development of report recommendations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".