Noninvasive Objective Tests for the Diagnosis of Clinically Suspected Deep-Vein Thrombosis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep-vein thrombosis of the lower extremity is a frequent disorder associated with morbidity and mortality due to pulmonary embolism and the postthrombotic syndrome. It was not until the introduction of contrast venography that the inaccuracy of the clinical diagnosis became apparent. Since then, management decisions have usually been based on objective diagnostic test. Venography is generally considered the reference method for the diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis, but it is invasive and associated with serious side effects. Several noninvasive or less invasive objective diagnostic methods have been developed. These diagnostic methods are distinctly different in technology and consequently in their ability to demonstrate or refute deep-vein thrombosis. In this review, a critical analysis is provided on the accuracy of the current noninvasive diagnostic approaches to venous thrombosis in patients with a first episode of clinically suspected deep-vein thrombosis. Results of studies were considered only when their methodology fulfilled the essential criteria for evaluation of a diagnostic test.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it