MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diagnosis of von Willebrand disease

2025· article· en· W4413420152 on OpenAlexaff
Mackenzie Bowman, Paula James

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersPfizer
KeywordsVon Willebrand diseaseMedicineVon Willebrand factorIntensive care medicineDiseasePediatricsImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder, resulting from a deficiency and/or dysfunction of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Since its first description 100 years ago, the diagnosis of VWD has evolved due to advancements in laboratory diagnostic tests and clinical guidelines and recommendations. There are 3 established diagnostic criteria for VWD: a personal history of excessive mucocutaneous bleeding, a family history of bleeding, and reduced VWF levels. Over the years, the diagnosis of VWD has been challenging, due to a lack of consensus and barriers to achieving an accurate and timely diagnosis. In 2021 evidence-based clinical practice guidelines were developed. These guidelines have provided clarity and consensus but there continues to be opposing views and challenges. Additionally, there remain barriers to achieving a diagnosis of VWD that need to be addressed.

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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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