Oral Antimicrobial Therapy for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteomyelitis in the foot of a diabetic individual is a common complication of peripheral neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, and infection. Operative facilities and home intravenous antibiotic therapy programs may not be available in remote or rural communities. Limited data are available regarding the treatment results of oral antimicrobial therapy, with or without limited office debridement for diabetic foot osteomyelitis. METHODS: This retrospective medical record review of 325 consecutive diabetic patients who were evaluated at a multidisciplinary foot clinic identified 94 (29%) patients with 117 episodes of osteomyelitis. The most common group of organisms isolated were aerobic gram-positive cocci, and the single most frequent organism was Staphylococcus aureus. A mean of 1.6 +/- 0.8 (range 1 to 4) pathogens were recovered per episode of osteomyelitis. Therapy was guided by culture results. There were 93 episodes of osteomyelitis (79 patients) that were treated with a mean of 3 +/- 1 oral antimicrobial agents (with or without an initial short course of intravenous antimicrobial agents) and had adequate followup to evaluate outcome of treatment; office treatment included bone debridement in 26 (28%) and toe amputation in nine (10%) of the 93 episodes (79 patients). RESULTS: Of the 93 episodes treated with oral antimicrobial agents (with or without an initial short course of intravenous antimicrobial agents), 75 (80.5%) episodes were put into remission. Mean duration of oral antimicrobial therapy was 40 +/- 30 weeks. Mean relapse-free followup duration was 50 +/- 50 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis was effectively managed with oral antimicrobial therapy with or without limited office debridement in most patients. This regimen may be especially useful in communities where infectious disease specialists and operative resources are limited.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".