Reporting Peripheral Artery Disease in Claudicants: Lessons Learned From the TASC-Ability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus Document (TASC II) aims to comprehensively describe the case scenarios of aortoiliac and femoropopliteal lesions to suggest an endovascular or a surgical approach. Over time, it has become a guide for describing the gravity of arterial lesions. PURPOSE: To assess the revised TASC II system for classifying arterial lesions in a large database of patients presenting with claudication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of the arteriograms of patients with intermittent claudication. Aortoiliac and femoropopliteal lesions were classified according to the TASC II. When no consensus was reached, the lesion was rated as unTASCable. RESULTS: In total, 1454 patients were included (male: 62.1%, 66.8±9.3 years). There were 39% aortoiliac lesions (n=960/2462) and 61% femoropopliteal lesions (n=1502/2462); 33.6% of the patients (n=489/1454) were associated with aortoiliac and femoropopliteal lesions. In addition, 20% of the lesions (n=493/2462) were unTASCable, and 26.7% of the patients (n=388/1454) had at least 1 unTASCable lesion. There were 4 categories of unTASCable lesions: (1) association with a common femoral artery lesion in 53.1% (n=262/493); (2) iliac artery lesions in 23.1% (n=114/493); (3) femoropopliteal lesions whose lengths did not fit into any category in 16.6% (n=82/493); and (4) association with an aortic lesion in 7.1% (n=35/493). The interobserver agreement was 0.97 for anatomically describing the infrarenal arterial tree and 0.85 for TASCing, with the lesions lowering to 0.69 for aortoiliac lesions. CONCLUSION: Using the revised TASC II case scenario, 26.7% of the patients had at least 1 unTASCable lesion. Reporting peripheral artery disease using a comprehensive anatomical description of the infrarenal arterial tree showed better interobserver reproducibility.
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 | 0.037 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".