Validation of Outcome Instruments for Pediatric Postthrombotic Syndrome: Introducing the Peds-VEINES-QOL, a New Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is need for validated outcome measures for postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) following pediatric venous thromboembolism (VTE), with a focus on quality of life (QoL). Aims This article assesses reliability and validity of two PTS and two QoL scales for children following lower extremity VTE. Methods Pediatric patients following lower extremity VTE were recruited from three thrombosis clinics. The Manco–Johnson (MJ) and the modified Villalta (MV) PTS scales were compared with each other and with the generic pediatric health-related QoL, PedsQL, and a newly developed pediatric venous-specific QoL, the Peds-VEINES-QOL. Results Eighty children following VTE and 60 healthy control children were enrolled. Internal consistency measured by Cronbach's α was high for the two QoL scales, and moderate for the two PTS scales. Inter-rater reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients was moderate to high for the MJ, MV, and Peds-VEINES-QOL, and moderate for the PedsQL. Evidence of high internal consistency by Cronbach's α coefficients, and moderate to high interitem correlations support the premise that a single construct was measured by each instrument. Correlations between the four instruments indicate convergent validity. Conclusion The MJ and MV scales detect similar outcomes in children following VTE. As used, the MJ is slightly more sensitive to QoL because a positive diagnosis requires pain which is the leading factor in reduced QoL following deep vein thrombosis. When using the MV, a requirement for pain or abnormal use to diagnose PTS would make the MV a better predictor of QoL.
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 | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".