Patient-Reported Benefits of Extracranial Venous Therapy: British Columbia CCSVI Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) has been hypothesized to be a risk factor for multiple sclerosis (MS). Venoplasty has been proposed as a treatment for CCSVI. The aim of our study was to gain a better understanding of the "real-world" safety and longitudinal effectiveness of venoplasty Methods: British Columbia residents who self-reported having had venoplasty and consented to participate in the study were interviewed and followed for up to 24 months post-therapy using standardized structured questionnaires Results: Participants reported procedure-related complications (11.5%) and complications within the first month after the procedure (17.3%). Initially, more than 40% of participants perceived that the venoplasty had had positive effects on their health conditions, such as fatigue, numbness, balance, concentration/memory and mobility. However, this improvement was not maintained over time Conclusions: Follow-up patient-reported outcomes indicated that the initial perception of the positive impact of venoplasty on the health conditions of MS patients was not sustained over time. In addition, venoplasty was not without associated morbidity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".