Effective management of patients with diabetes foot ulcers: outcomes of an Interprofessional Diabetes Foot Ulcer Team
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
A longitudinal observational study on a convenience sample was conducted between 4 January and 31 December of 2010 to evaluate clinical outcomes that occur when a new Interprofessional Diabetes Foot Ulcer Team (IPDFUT) helps in the management of diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFUs) in patients living in a small urban community in Ontario, Canada. Eighty-three patients presented to the IPDFUT with 114 DFUs of average duration of 19·5 ± 2·7 weeks. Patients were 58·4 ± 1·4 years of age and 90% had type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 8·3 ± 2·0%, with an average diabetes duration of 22·3 ± 3·4 years; in 69% of patients, 78 DFUs healed in an average duration of 7·4 ± 0·7 weeks, requiring an average of 3·8 clinic visits. Amputation of a toe led to healing in three patients (4%) and one patient required a below-knee amputation. Six patients died and three withdrew. Adding a skilled IPDFUT that is trained to work together resulted in improved healing outcomes. The rate of healing, proportion of wounds closed and complication rate were similar if not better than the results published previously in Canada and around the world. The IPDFUT appears to be a successful model of care and could be used as a template to provide effective community care to the patients with DFU in Ontario, Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it