The VEINES-QOL/Sym Questionnaire Is a Valid and Reliable Measure of Quality of Life in Patients with Deep Venous Thrombosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: To assess the validity and reliability of VEINES-QOL/Sym, a patient-reported questionnaire, for the evaluation of quality of life and symptoms in patients with deep venous thrombosis. Study design: Psychometric study within the Venous Thrombosis Outcomes (VETO) Study, a Canadian multicenter prospective cohort study of long term outcomes after venous thrombosis. Subjects: 359 English and French-speaking patients with deep vein thrombosis consecutively recruited at seven hospitals in the province of Quebec, Canada. Outcome measures: The 26-item VEINES-QOL/Sym is a patient-reported questionnaire that we originally developed and validated for use in patients with chronic venous disorders of the leg (J Vasc Surg 2003). VEINES-QOL/Sym generates separate summary scores for symptoms and quality of life. We performed a comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of VEINES-QOL/Sym in the VETO study population, all of whom had objectively diagnosed symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (mean age 56 years; 50% male; 67% outpatients; 55% proximal DVT). Results: Criterion-standard psychometric tests confirmed the acceptability (missing data, item endorsement frequencies, floor and ceiling effects), reliability (internal consistency, item-total and inter-item correlations, test-retest), validity (content, construct, convergent, discriminant, known groups) and responsiveness to clinical change of the VEINES-QOL/Sym. Conclusions: Our results indicate that VEINES-QOL/Sym is a practical, valid and reliable measure of quality of life and symptoms in patients with deep venous thrombosis. VEINES-QOL/Sym provides a rigorous tool to allow more comprehensive evaluation of patient outcomes in clinical trials and epidemiological studies of patients with deep venous thrombosis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".