Sclerotherapy of varicose veins in patients with documented thrombophilia: a prospective controlled randomized study of 105 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess thrombotic complications following sclerotherapy in thrombophilic patients in combination with thromboprophylaxis, in two randomized arms using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or warfarin. Patients and methods This study received approval from the Ethics Committee. A total of 105 patients (81 females, 24 males) ranging in age from 20 to 82 years (mean 50) were selected: 75 with Factor V Leiden mutation, 18 with prothrombin 20210A mutation, 7 with high level of Factor VIII, 5 combinations of these. After randomization, 51 and 54 patients received warfarin and LMWH, respectively. A total of 199 sclerotherapy sessions were performed. Foam was used in 160 treatments. RESULTS: No episodes of symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) occurred; no instances of DVT were revealed by ultrasound-monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that in the three most common forms of thrombophilia, sclerotherapy, in combination with thromboprophylaxis, can be performed safely. Prophylaxis with LMWH is easier to use than warfarin.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".