MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047071790 · doi:10.3113/fai.2007.0674

Foot and Ankle Problems of Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Diabetic Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease

2007· article· en· W2047071790 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ian McIntyre, Cindy Boughen, Elly Trepman, John M. Embil

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle International · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFoot (prosody)AmputationAnkleDiabetes mellitusDiabetic footDiabetic foot ulcerEnd stage renal diseasePopulationMedical recordOsteomyelitisDiseaseRetrospective cohort studyPhysical therapySurgeryHemodialysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is little information available about the profile of lower extremity morbidity in diabetic patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the Canadian Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population. METHOD: A retrospective review of medical records in 127 diabetic patients on hemodialysis at a tertiary health care center was performed. Patient interviews and physical examinations were performed in 77 of these patients (36 Aboriginal, 41 non-Aboriginal), and followup evaluation was done in 39 patients at an average of 1 year later. RESULTS: Aboriginal patients were an average of 7 years younger than non-Aboriginal patients. Comorbidities of diabetes and ESRD were frequent. Peripheral neuropathy and inability to occlude the vessels were present in the majority of feet. Lower extremity complications were frequent, including prior foot ulcer in the majority of patients and an amputation in more than one fourth of the patients. Aboriginal patients had a significantly greater frequency of prior foot ulcer, mean number of foot ulcers per patient, amputation, prior osteomyelitis, and Charcot foot than non-Aboriginal patients. Almost all patients were at risk for future foot ulcer, but many patients did not inspect their feet daily. Home care was significantly less frequently available for Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal patients. The majority of patients had inadequate custom or prefabricated shoes and did not wear insoles on the day of examination. Aboriginal patients cited financial cost, insufficient family support, and language barriers as reasons for inadequate foot care and footwear more frequently than non-Aboriginal subjects. A significantly smaller frequency of Aboriginal patients had good knowledge of footwear or diet than non-Aboriginal patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lower extremity complications were significantly more frequent in Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal diabetic patients with ESRD. Financial cost and knowledge deficit were barriers to adequate foot care and footwear. These findings support the need for a formal foot care and footwear program for this high-risk population.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoot & Ankle InternationalSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207