Value of Patient Self-Assessment in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Post-Thrombotic Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a frequent and burdensome disease, but no gold standard test exists to diagnose it. The value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in recording transient signs/symptoms, thereby possibly improving diagnosis/monitoring and subsequent clinical care in some diseases, is increasingly being recognized. For example, PROs have been successfully used in cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and endometriosis. In this context, we describe a patient-reported questionnaire (the Patient-Tracked Symptoms questionnaire) that contains questions on the presence of signs/symptoms of PTS. This questionnaire has face validity and was successfully used in the Home-LITE trial. It could prove valuable in monitoring patient symptoms, especially in home-based patients who do not have regular contact with hospital clinicians. Patients who report symptoms can then undergo follow-up assessment by health care professionals at their next clinic visit. The Patient-Tracked Symptoms questionnaire could help clinicians to recognize the PTS early, enabling them to initiate treatment promptly.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".