Measures of Success and Health-Related Quality of Life in Lower-Extremity Vascular Surgery
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
Lower-extremity vascular surgery is most often indicated for patients with critical leg ischemia but has increasingly been used for patients with disabling intermittent claudication. This article reviews indications, follow-up protocols, and procedure-related outcomes including perioperative and late mortality, complications, and long-term patency rates, which vary with patient risk factors, vascular disease severity, and hospital volume. Population-based studies have yet to establish whether rates of limb-preserving bypass surgery are related to overall amputation rates, partly because of the continued high rate of primary amputation. The functional benefits of vascular surgery have been traditionally assessed by treadmill protocols and batteries of physical tests. Claudication treatment is increasingly being measured by both generic and disease-specific functional and health-related quality-of-life questionnaires. Patient self-reported measures of physical functioning and walking ability are reviewed. Finally, conclusions are presented about trends in lower-extremity bypass surgery rates.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it