Risk Factors for the First-Time Development of Venous Ulcers of the Lower Limbs: The Influence of Heredity and Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this prospective case-control study was to identify and quantify demographic and clinical risk factors for venous ulcer disease, with special emphasis on heredity and physical activity. Patients presenting to a participating vascular surgery department between January and December 1997 with a first open venous ulcer served as cases. Controls were sampled among patients with subacute conditions such as skin problems, back pain, cold, headache/migraine, sore throat, and mild ear infections and were matched on referral physician, age (+/-5 years), and gender. Subjects were eligible if they were 18 years or older and were excluded if they had nonpalpable pedal pulse or any chronic active diseases such as cancer or AIDS. Cases' and controls' statuses were ascertained by the participating physicians. Data on risk factors were collected with an interviewer-administered questionnaire and were self-reported by patients. The mean age of participants was 61 years for cases (n = 102) and 59 years for controls (n = 200). Family history of maternal venous insufficiency (odds ratio (OR) = 6.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [1.9, 24.3]95%), vigorous exercise (OR = 8.9, CI = [1.1, 72.0]95%), and history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR = 17.6, CI = [2.9, 106.8]95%) were found to be significant predictors of venous ulcers in matched multivariate logistic regression analysis; number of pregnancies was also a significant risk factor in women (OR = 1.2, Cl = [1.0, 1.5]95%). Our study suggests that knowledge of family history of venous insufficiency and monitoring of physical activity will lead to ulcer prevention. Although physical activity is recommended for patients with venous insufficiency, vigorous exercise increases the likelihood of ulcerations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".