Medical Tourism for CCSVI Procedures in People with Multiple Sclerosis: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many Canadians with multiple sclerosis (MS) have recently travelled internationally to have procedures for a putative condition called chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI). Here, we describe where and when they went and describe the baseline characteristics of persons with MS who participated in this non-evidence-based medical tourism for CCSVI procedures. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal observational study that used online questionnaires to collect patient-reported information about the safety, experiences, and outcomes following procedures for CCSVI. A convenience sample of all Albertans with MS was recruited between July 2011 and March 2013. RESULTS: In total, 868 individuals enrolled; 704 were included in this cross-sectional, baseline analysis. Of these, 128 (18.2%) participants retrospectively reported having procedures for CCSVI between April 2010 and September 2012. The proportion of participants reporting CCSVI procedures declined from 80 (62.5%) in 2010, to 40 (31.1%) in 2011, and 8 (6.3%) in 2012. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, CCSVI procedures were independently associated with longer disease duration, secondary progressive clinical course, and greater disability status. CONCLUSIONS: Although all types of people with MS pursued procedures for CCSVI, a major driver of participation was greater disability. This highlights that those with the greatest disability are the most vulnerable to unproven experimental procedures. Participation in CCSVI procedures waned over time possibly reflecting unmet expectations of treated patients, decreased media attention, or that individuals who wanted procedures had them soon after the CCSVI hypothesis was widely publicized.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".