MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Skin Problems in an Amputee Clinic

2006· article· en· W1992946330 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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