An apparent CEAP inconsistency: should the classification be revised?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CEAP is a score designed to give a synthetic description of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). There is a conflict between the original 1996 CEAP classification and the 2004 revision. The former used a detailed anatomical representation in the anatomical A category, while the latter shifted the same codes to the pathological P category, yielding unexpected advantages. Two similar clinical cases are presented: they are assigned the same score under the original CEAP, while the revision is able to differentiate between them. The CEAP score is not designed as a clinical dossier, but it gives an instantaneous image of a clinical condition, which however is not suitable to follow the evolution of CVI. The shunt classification is another theoretical framework useful to the comprehension of chronic venous diseases. The advanced terms of CEAP are not in conflict with the shunt classification, while they could be only complementary points of view. This work started from a debate on the Vasculab message list. From the discussion the need of a new revision appeared clear. A decision was made to undertake an On Line CEAP survey, which is still in progress. The results will be available in the near future and we hope they will be useful to guide any eventual official revision.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".