Evaluation of a venous-return assist device to treat severe post-thrombotic syndrome (VENOPTS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is responsible for considerable disability, reduced quality of life and increased health care costs. Current therapies are limited and often ineffective. We performed a two-centre, randomized, cross-over controlled trial to evaluate Venowave, a novel lower-limb venous-return assist device, for the treatment of severe PTS. Eligible subjects were allocated to receive, in randomized order, Venowave for eight weeks and a control device for eight weeks. The eight-week treatment periods were separated by a four-week period when no device was used (i.e. wash-out period). The primary outcome measure was a 'clinical success' defined as: i) reported benefit from the device; and ii) moderate or greater improvement in symptoms of PTS; and iii) willingness to continue using the device. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life (QOL) as measured by VEINES-QOL questionnaire (higher scores indicate better QOL), and PTS severity as measured by the Villalta PTS scale (higher scores indicate more severe PTS). The study was registered with Clinical Trials. gov (NCT00182208). Thirty-two patients were enrolled. Of these, 26 (80%) were also using graduated compression stockings. Twenty-six participants completed both trial periods. Clinical success occurred in 10 (31%) participants receiving Venowave and four (13%) participants receiving the control device, with two (6%) participants reporting a clinical success with both devices (P = 0.11). Mean VEINES-QOL score at the end of study period was significantly greater (P = 0.004) for Venowave (52.5; SD 5.8) compared to control (50.2; SD 6.2). Mean Villalta scale score at the end of study period was significantly decreased (P = 0.004) for Venowave (12.2; SD 6.3) compared to control (15.0; SD 6.1). In conclusion, Venowave appears to be a very promising new therapy for patients with severe PTS, which may be used alone or in combination with graduated compression stockings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".