The role and principles of stenting in acute iliofemoral venous thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Catheter-directed interventions for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT) have been increasingly used over the past 15 years to target severe symptomatology and prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome incidence or reduce its severity if it were to develop. Aside from successful thrombus removal, adjunctive stents are frequently required to treat an uncovered lesion or significant residual thrombus to ensure quality of life improvement besides retarding DVT recurrence and post-thrombotic syndrome. As the evidence is mounting, the need and role for stenting, as well as the principles of an optimal technique, in the acute DVT setting are now better understood. Accumulating experience appears to favor stenting in the acute setting. The diameter of the stent, the length, the extent of overlapping, and the landing zones are crucial determinants of a successful durable outcome. This article endeavors to guide the interventionalist on stenting when encountering a patient with acute symptomatic iliofemoral DVT with concerns of quality of life impairment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".