Global Overview of Von Willebrand Disease Research: A Bibliometric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is a hereditary bleeding disorder with a high global prevalence. The aim of this study is to analyze the global landscape of scientific production on VWD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliometric study was conducted considering publications indexed in Scopus between 2020 and 2024. The search was performed in July 2025, identifying 951 documents, of which 588 original articles were included in the study. Productivity, impact, and co-authorship network indicators were evaluated using SciVal, Bibliometrix, and VOSviewer. RESULTS: The United States and the Netherlands accounted for the highest scientific output, with Erasmus University Rotterdam standing out as the leading institution. Among the most productive authors were Leebeek, Cnossen, and Eikenboom, while O’Donnell and Peyvandi showed the highest relative impact and h-index, respectively. The journals hemophilia and blood ranked as the main means of dissemination, with high normalized impact and citation metrics. The subcategory hematology was the most published. Three co-authorship clusters were identified: United States-Canada–Ireland, United Kingdom, and Netherlands–France–Italy. CONCLUSIONS: Research on VWD is led by the United States and, notably, by the Netherlands, which differs from other hematological fields where China often occupies dominant positions. The centrality of Q1 journals and multinodal networks reveal a dynamic field with potential for expansion into emerging countries. These findings can guide future collaborative agendas and optimize the visibility of research.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.131 | 0.237 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".