An Observational Study of Venoplasty in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: It is estimated that some hundreds of Canadian patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have journeyed abroad to avail themselves of 'liberation therapy' (venoplasty) following the initial report by Zamboni et al in 2009. That study also led to public pressure upon Departments of Health in Canadian Provinces to fund the procedure. The present study was done in order to advise the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as to whether or not it should do so. METHODS: We conducted an observational study of 30 MS subjects who had submitted to venoplasty, using objective, semi-objective and subjective measures. RESULTS: Significant subjective improvement was reported by half of the subjects at three months, although the degree of perceived improvement was less at 12 months. The objective and semi-objective tests employed did not indicate improvement in any area over the one-year follow-up period. Seven of the 29 subjects in whom CT venography was performed at the end of the study year were found to have uni- or bilateral occlusion or >50% stenosis of at least one cervical draining vein, but they showed no deterioration in their clinical status compared to those in whom no venous occlusion nor stenosis was found. CONCLUSION: No objective improvement was found at one year in thirty MS subjects who had undergone venoplasty, although many reported a degree of subjective benefit.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".