MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001323177 · doi:10.1177/000331970305400201

The LONFLIT4-Venoruton Study

2003· article· en· W2001323177 on OpenAlex
M R Cesarone, Gianni Belcaro, A. Di Renzo, P. Bavera, Mark Dugall, Emilio Simeone, G. Acerbi, E. Ippolito, Michelle Winford, C Candiani, Gerard Golden, A. Ricci, Stefano Stuard

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAngiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEdemaVaricose veinsMicroangiopathyPlaceboRandomized controlled trialSurgeryAnkleAnesthesiaInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this independent study was to evaluate the protective effects, on the development of flight edema, of Venoruton. The study included patients with venous disease traveling in economy in long-haul flights (9 hours). Edema is a relevant aspect of long-haul flights affecting both patients with venous disease and normal subjects. Microcirculatory variations during flights cause a microangiopathy and biochemical and coagulation alterations. This condition may be defined as flight microangiopathy. A group of 203 subjects with chronic venous disease (uncomplicated varicose veins) at low-medium risk for DVT were contacted; 43 subjects were excluded for several nonmedical, travel-related problems or inconvenient evaluation time; the remaining 160 were randomized, after informed consent, into 2 groups to evaluate 2 prophylaxes in 7-8-hour, long-haul flights: The treatment group received Venoruton (hydroxyethyl rutosides) 1 g twice daily for 3 days (2 days before the flight and the day of the flight). The control group received comparable placebo. The edema score was based on the edema tester, ankle circumference, volume measurements, subjective swelling, and discomfort score. Items 1, 4, and 5 are based on an analogue scale line (1 to 10) directly defined by the subjects before and after the flights. Of the 160 included subjects 139 completed the study. Dropouts (21) were due to poor compliance, traveling, and/or connection problems (11 in the control group, 10 in the treatment group). Age and sex distribution were comparable in the 2 groups as were risk factors distributions. The level of edema at inclusion was comparable in the 2 groups of subjects. After the flight there was an average score of 7.2 (sd 2) in the control group, while in the Venoruton group the score was on average 3.2. (sd 1.1) (p < 0.05), 2.25 times lower than in the control group (p < 0.05). In the control group 89% of the subjects had an evident increase in ankle circumference and volume, which was clearly visible at inspection and associated with discomfort. In the Venoruton group edema was clearly present in 12% of subjects (associated with discomfort between 5 and 7 on the analogue scale line) and it was mild-moderate, not associated with symptoms (pain, discomfort between 2 and 4 on the analogue scale line). Therefore, the control of flight edema with Venoruton was clear both considering parametric data (circumference and volume) and nonparametric (analogue scale lines) measurements. The combined evaluation of the edema score is significantly favorable for patients treated with Venoruton. No deep vein thrombosis or superficial vein thrombosis was observed in this study.

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.

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 score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.286 · 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