Assessment of limb edema in pediatric post‐thrombotic syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric tools for diagnosis of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) include the assessment of limb edema as a symptom (patient/proxy-reported) and as a sign. However, it is unclear whether these two approaches refer to the same clinical aspect of PTS. This could result in overestimation of disease severity. We sought to evaluate the correlation among different techniques to assess limb edema as a sign and as a symptom in children who sustained upper extremity (UE) or lower extremity (LE) deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and were, therefore, at risk of PTS. METHODS: Limb edema was cross-sectionally measured as a symptom (ie, patient- or proxy-reported) and as a sign (ie, clinician-assessed limb circumference difference, limb volume ratio, bioimpedance spectroscopy ratio (BIS), and durometry ratio) in 140 children at risk of PTS (n = 70 UE-DVT, n = 70 LE-DVT). Item-item correlations were estimated using Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients, as appropriate, and separately for the UE and LE groups. RESULTS: In the UE-DVT group, proxy-reported swelling correlated weakly to moderately with circumference difference and with volume ratio, but not with BIS ratio. In the LE-DVT group, proxy-reported swelling correlated moderately with thigh circumference difference and volume ratio, and patient-reported swelling correlated moderately with BIS ratio. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that patient/proxy-reported and clinician-assessed limb edema measure slightly different aspects of PTS, justifying their inclusion in pediatric PTS tools. In addition, proxy-reported swelling was in closer agreement with clinician-assessed total limb size (ie, observed edema), and patient-reported swelling in the LE seemed to reflect limb fluid content (ie, perceived edema).
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".