MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411965628 · doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103729

2025 SCAI Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Chronic Venous Disease

2025· article· en· W4411965628 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Attaran, Matthew L. Edwards, Frank Arena, Matthew C. Bunte, Jeffrey G. Carr, Yulanka Castro‐Dominguez, Andrey Espinoza, Dmitriy N. Feldman, Scott Firestone, Eri Fukaya, Karem C. Harth, Beau M. Hawkins, Sasanka Jayasuriya, Pamela Kim, Faisal Latif, Sahil A. Parikh, Eric A. Secemsky, Emily Senerth, Yngve Falck–Ytter, Rebecca L. Morgan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSociety for Cardiovascular Angiography and InterventionsMedtronicBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineClinical PracticeCardiologyInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chronic venous disease (CVD) is a common vascular condition that can have debilitating effects on quality of life and daily function. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) sought to develop evidence-based guidelines to support patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders in their treatment decisions about management of CVD. Methods: SCAI convened a balanced multidisciplinary guideline panel to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Evidence Foundation, a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, provided methodological support for the development of the guidelines. The guideline panel formulated and prioritized clinical questions following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach in population, intervention, comparison, outcome format. A technical review team of clinical and methodological experts conducted systematic reviews of the published evidence, synthesized data, and graded the certainty of the evidence across outcomes. The guideline panel then reconvened to develop recommendations and supporting remarks informed by the results of the technical review, as well as additional contextual factors described in the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework. Results: The guideline panel reached consensus on 9 recommendations to address variations in treatment of CVD across 8 different clinical scenarios. The panel also identified 4 anatomical scenarios with significant knowledge gaps. Conclusions: Key recommendations address patient selection for compression therapy, ablation of saphenous and perforator veins, sclerotherapy, phlebectomy, and deep vein revascularization. Two algorithms for the management of symptomatic varicose veins and venous ulcer disease were created to facilitate implementation of these evidence-based recommendations. The panel also identified several anatomical and clinical areas where future research is needed to advance the CVD field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0170.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0140.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.029

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsSame topicDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous DiseasesFrench-language works237,207