Current practice in treating chronic venous disease by Canadian vascular surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the practice patterns and interests of vascular surgeons in Canada in the treatment of chronic venous disorder. Methods A web-based 19-question survey was sent to 155 active members of the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery. Questions assessed training background, interest in venous disease, practice site, venous treatments offered, and obstacles to therapy. Results A total of 64 responses (41%) were acquired. Respondents were roughly equal from academic (55%) and community (45%) sites with an even distribution of years in practice. Only 43% offered full range of therapy, which includes compression stockings, sclerotherapy, vein surgery, and endovenous ablation. The main challenges hindering venous practice include lack of time due to overwhelming arterial pathologies (67%), equipment cost/office space limitations (53%), and lack of knowledge or skills in contemporary procedures (28%). The majority of surgeons felt that their residency and fellowship did not prepare them for an active venous practice (69%). Fifty-four percent of the respondents perceived barriers in getting venous ultrasound imaging for their patients. Only 19% of the surgeons find venous disease interesting. Characteristics of these interested surgeons were analyzed and found to be very different from surgeons who did not expressed interest. An overwhelming 92% of all respondents believe that vascular surgeons should be leaders in delivering care for venous disease. Conclusion The treatment of chronic venous disorder has advanced over the last few decades but significant obstacles exist for Canadian surgeons to deliver venous therapy in accordance with current guidelines.
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) | 0.001 | 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".