Comparison of Performance of Two Clinical Scales To Diagnose the Post-Thrombotic Syndrome: Correlation with Patient-Reported Disease Burden and Valvular Reflux.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background and Objectives: There is no objective, criterion standard test to diagnose the post thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Two clinical scales have been used to classify deep vein thrombosis (DVT) patients as having or not having the PTS: the Villalta scale and the Ginsberg measure. Differences in test characteristics of these measures could help explain differing rates of PTS reported after DVT. During a Canadian prospective cohort study of long-term outcomes after DVT (The VETO Study), we carried out a substudy to evaluate agreement between the Villalta and Ginsberg measures with regard to (1) proportion of patients classified as having PTS; (2) relation to patient-reported quality of life (QOL); and (3) correlation with venous valvular reflux, a physiological indicator of chronic venous disease. Methods: For this substudy, 259 VETO patients were assessed for ipsilateral PTS at the 1 year follow-up visit using both the Villalta scale (grades the severity of 5 symptoms and 6 signs from 0–3; a summed total score of ≥5 indicates PTS, and >14 or presence of ulcer indicates severe PTS) and the Ginsberg PTS measure (PTS defined by the presence of daily leg pain and swelling for ≥ 1 month, occurring 6 months or more after DVT, made worse by standing/walking and relieved by rest/leg elevation). Patients also completed generic (SF-36) and disease-specific (VEINES-QOL) QOL questionnaires and underwent a standardized ultrasound assessment for ipsilateral popliteal venous valvular reflux. We compared the proportion of patients classified as having PTS with each measure and assessed associations with QOL and valvular reflux. Results: Proportion of patients classified as having PTS was 96/259 (37%) (5/96 severe) with the Villalta scale and 21/259 (8.1%) with the Ginsberg measure (kappa 0.22; 95% CI 0.13, 0.32). Agreement between measures was better for severe PTS than for any PTS. For both measures, generic and disease specific-QOL scores were significantly lower (i.e. poorer QOL) in patients with vs. without PTS; however, QOL was worse in patients with Ginsberg-PTS than in patients with Villalta-PTS. Reflux was not significantly associated with PTS for either measure. Conclusions: The proportion of patients classified as having PTS was more than 4-fold higher with the Villalta measure than with the Ginsberg measure. While both measures showed a graded association with QOL, patients with Ginsberg-PTS had poorer QOL and higher mean Villalta scores, indicating that the Ginsberg measure identifies more severe disease. The presence of reflux was not discriminating for the diagnosis of PTS with either measure. Comparison of Villalta and Ginsberg PTS measures Villalta PTS Ginsberg PTS Mean (SD) YES NO p YES NO p Villalta score 8.3 (3.1) 1.6 (1.4) <.0001 9.2 (3.5) 3.6 (3.4) <.0001 SF-36 MCS (mental) 49.5 (12.1) 54.2 (8.3) .0007 47.3 (12.6) 52.9 (9.7) 0.01 SF-36 PCS (physical) 39.7 (11.0) 49.1 (10.0) <.0001 35.0 (12.4) 46.8 (10.8) <.0001 VEINES-QOL 48.6 (6.1) 56.2 (2.5) <.0001 44.1 (5.6) 54.2 (5.1) <.0001 Reflux present (%) 54.6% 44.0% 0.12 52.6% 46.2% 0.59
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».