MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Skin Problems in an Amputee Clinic

2006· article· en· W1992946330 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nancy Dudek, Meridith B. Marks, Shawn Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtiologyOutpatient clinicReferralProsthesisDermatologyRehabilitationSurgeryPhysical therapyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To document the type and frequency of individual residual limb skin problems among patients using a lower extremity prosthesis, including the suggested etiology and management of each type of skin problem. DESIGN: This is a 6-yr retrospective chart review of skin lesions diagnosed in patients examined in an outpatient amputee clinic at a regional, referral rehabilitation hospital in Ottawa, Canada. Skin lesions were included if they were on a lower extremity residual limb for a patient who functionally used a prosthesis. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data. RESULTS: A total of 528 skin problems were documented in 337 lower extremity residual limbs. Ulcers, irritations, inclusion cysts, calluses, and verrucous hyperplasia were the five most common skin problems representing 79.5% of all documented skin disorders. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that a wide variety of dermatologic conditions occurred frequently in the lower extremity amputee who functionally used a prosthesis. Five types of skin problems accounted for nearly 80% of the skin lesions identified. Future studies are required to evaluate prevention and management of the most frequent skin problems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations56
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207