Bibliographic record
Abstract
D. Berbrayer, No Disclosures: I Have No Relevant Financial Relationships to Disclose. To identify strategies used by diabetic lower extremity amputees to prevent further amputation. A cross-sectional survey was conducted on diabetic amputees >18 years registered at an academic hospital. A 26-question self-administered questionnaire was used to obtain information on demographics, clinical characteristics, foot care, lifestyle modifications, compliance with medication and blood glucose monitoring. Questions were selected from Summary of Diabetic Self-Care Activities Measure. Academic Teaching Hospital. Type 2 diabetics (>18 years) with amputation. 26 Question Diabetic Self Care Questionnaire administered. Information on demographics, clinical characteristics foot care, lifestyle, compliance with medication and blood glucose monitoring obtained from Diabetic Self Care Questionnaire. Ten type 2 diabetes mellitus participants -mean age of participants was 61 years. 80% were male. 50% were single. 80% living with family. 80% annual income of 0-$19,999. 60% had college or university education. The mean body mass index was 32 kg/m. Participants were diagnosed with diabetes 17 years ago, and received a lower limb amputation 3 years ago. Mean time between diagnosis and amputation was 14 years. 90% of participants had a transtibial amputation, and 10% had a transfemoral amputation. 50% participants checked their feet on a daily basis within the past week. 50% wore special shoes. 40% wore socks. 20% compliant with blood sugar monitoring. 40% walked 30 minutes/week. Overall, compliance with foot care was poor among diabetic amputees. Adherence to eating plan and regular physical activity was also low. Healthcare providers should improve self-care among diabetic amputees through various education methods. Healthcare professionals should ensure discussion of foot care and general diabetes self-management with a patient after an amputation, and repeat discussion of self-care at follow-up appointments. Literature suggests face-to-face education of self-care is more effective than other information delivery methods, and that the use of booster sessions improved clinical outcomes. Interactive education methods have been shown to have higher effectiveness on patient behavior comparing to didactic sessions. Diabetic patients had equally poor foot care after and before an amputation.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".