Comparison of examination techniques of anterior and posterior compartments of the leg for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis: A new examination technique
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several examination techniques have been described for the diagnosis of leg deep vein thrombosis. These previously described examination techniques aim to detect muscle pain that occurs secondary to increased pressure in the posterior compartment of the leg. However, to the best of our knowledge no studies investigated the frequency of muscle pain on the anterior compartment in patients with leg deep vein thrombosis the objective of this study is to investigate the prevalence of muscle pain in the anterior compartment. METHODS: The patients who were diagnosed with acute deep vein thrombosis were included in this prospective cross-sectional study. Each patient was examined using the techniques that determine the pain on the posterior compartment as well as using the technique we described to detect muscle pain on the anterior compartment. RESULTS: Two hunderd forty three patients were enrolled in the study. Among those, both distal and proximal deep vein thrombosis was present in 128 (52.7%) patients. 75% of them had muscle pain in the anterior compartment. CONCLUSION: The results suggested that examination of muscle pain in anterior compartment of leg in patients with both proximal and distal deep vein thrombosis can be used as an additional physical examination techniques for early diagnosis.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it