Quality of Life of Adults with Unhealed and Healed Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot ulcers cause major treatment morbidity and cost of care. This study evaluated quality of life in patients with unhealed and healed diabetic foot ulcers. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of adult diabetic patients (age 45 years or older) treated in a tertiary care foot clinic who had foot ulcers within the preceding 2 years. Patients with other diabetic complications or conditions that would potentially affect quality of life were excluded. Two patient groups of comparable age, gender distribution, and duration of diabetes were studied: 57 patients with unhealed ulcers (minimum duration, 6 months) and 47 patients with healed ulcers. Telephone interviews were done using the Short Form 12 (SF-12) (both groups) and a Cardiff Wound Impact Scale (CWIS) (unhealed ulcer group). RESULTS: The mean SF-12 Physical Component Summary score was significantly lower for the group with unhealed ulcers (unhealed, 35 +/- 8 points; healed, 39 +/- 10 points; p = 0.04); these scores for both groups were significantly lower than published Short Form 36 (SF-36) scores for general, diabetic, and hypertensive populations. The mean SF-12 Mental Component Summary scores of the groups did not differ significantly from each other or from published population scores. CWIS responses showed that patients with unhealed ulcers were frustrated with healing and had anxiety about the wounds, resulting in marked negative impact on the average Well-being Component Score (35 +/- 6 points). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with diabetic foot ulcers experience profound compromise of physical quality of life, which is worse in those with unhealed ulcers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".