Photoplethysmography-based assessment of varicose vein-related risk factors, exercise health beliefs, and venous refill time in healthcare professionals working in operating rooms and outpatient clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACGROUND: Impaired venous return is observed in healthcare professionals who spend long periods standing and sitting. This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate varicose vein-related risk factors, exercise health beliefs, and venous refill time in healthcare professionals working in operating rooms and outpatient clinics by photoplethysmography. METHOD: The study sample consisted of 100 healthcare professionals without a diagnosis of peripheral venous insufficiency. Data were collected using a descriptive characteristics form, the Health Belief Model Scale for Exercise, the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and photoplethysmography. RESULT: This study found that OR nurses had shorter venous refill times and experienced more pain due to prolonged standing, despite their high health beliefs about exercise. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals working in operating rooms should be screened for venous insufficiency and trained regarding the practices to prevent venous insufficiency, such as lying down, elevating legs, and using elastic stockings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".