Effect of Postthrombotic Syndrome on Health-Related Quality of Life After Deep Venous Thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a frequent chronic complication of deep venous thrombosis, yet its impact on health-related quality of life has not been well characterized. We compared generic and venous disease-specific quality of life in patients with and without PTS, and assessed whether quality of life correlated with severity of PTS. METHODS: Subjects with previous deep venous thrombosis were participants in a study of the effects of exercise after deep venous thrombosis. We ascertained PTS and its severity using a validated clinical scale. Subjects completed generic (the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) and disease-specific (Venous Insufficiency Epidemiologic and Economic Study quality-of-life questionnaire [VEINES-QOL] and its validated subscale of 10 items on venous symptoms [VEINES-Sym]) quality-of-life measures. Age- and sex-adjusted mean quality-of-life scores were compared in patients with and without PTS, and by severity of PTS. RESULTS: Of the 41 subjects (mean age, 51.2 years), 19 (46%) had PTS. Subjects with PTS had significantly worse disease-specific quality-of-life scores than those without PTS (mean +/- SD VEINES-QOL score, 44.5 +/- 11.6 vs 54.8 +/- 5.4, respectively [P<.001]; mean +/- SD VEINES-Sym score, 45.6 +/- 11.4 vs 54.1 +/- 6.7, respectively [P =.003]), which worsened significantly with increasing severity of PTS. We found no differences in generic quality-of-life scores between subject groups. CONCLUSIONS: Postthrombotic syndrome has a significant impact on disease-specific quality of life that may not be captured by generic quality-of-life measures. Patient-based quality-of-life measures correlated well with physician-assessed PTS. Further research is indicated to assess the value of including quality of life as a routine measure of outcome in clinical studies of patients with deep venous thrombosis and PTS.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".