Primary venous aneurysms: A 20-year retrospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Primary venous aneurysms are unusual vascular occurrences. Our aim is to document our institution's experience with this pathology; describing frequency, diagnosis, outcomes and medical histories of patients with primary venous aneurysms within a 20-year time frame. METHODS: A retrospective study at our institution using its radiology database was conducted. Results were isolated to primary venous aneurysms diagnosed between 1997 and 2017. Basic demographics and medical history were collected. RESULTS: We identified 32 patients with primary venous aneurysms. Eighteen were male and 14 were female. The average age of presentation was 54 years old, with a range of 17-86. None of these patients reported a family history of aneurysmal disease. The majority were incidental. Of these aneurysms, 3 were of the head and neck, 1 was contained in the thorax, 17 were intra-abdominal and 11 were peripheral. Diagnosis was made by computed tomography, duplex ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging. Conservative management was most frequently employed, but four patients underwent surgical repair. Three aneurysms required operation for symptom management (external jugular, subclavian, inferior vena cava), whereas one aneurysm of the popliteal vein was prophylactically managed, given the high risk for pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: Primary venous aneurysms present infrequently. Despite their rarity, primary venous aneurysms have been reported to occur throughout the venous system. The majority of primary venous aneurysms in this series were found incidentally and can present both symptomatically or asymptomatically. The findings of our 20-year experience were consistent with the existing literature. Because the risk of rupture is negligible, the indications for surgical management remain for cosmesis, symptom management or high risk of thromboembolic events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".