Long-Term Outcomes and Survival of Patients with Bilateral Transtibial Amputations After Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine long-term outcomes and survival of patients after bilateral transtibial amputation (BTTA). DESIGN: A retrospective chart review and a cross-sectional interview was conducted at Amputee Rehabilitation Service, West Park Healthcare Centre, Toronto, Canada, with consecutive diabetic or vascular BTTA patients (n = 82) admitted for rehabilitation from 1998 to 2003. Main outcome measures included the Houghton scale of prosthetic use, SF-12, Frenchay Activities Index, and qualitative measurement of activities of daily living (ADL). RESULTS: Of 82 patients admitted for BTTA rehabilitation, 34 patients were interviewed an average of 3.7 yrs after amputation. Another 32 patients had died. Life expectancy was 4.2 yrs beyond rehabilitation discharge (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis). The mean modified Houghton score at telephone follow-up was 6.3 (maximum score of 9), with a significant improvement from rehabilitation discharge to follow-up (P = 0.001). Eighty-five percent were still wearing prostheses regularly and were walking. Most remained independent in ADLs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing rehabilitation for BTTA continue to do well at long-term follow-up and to survive, on average, for more than 4 yrs after discharge. Therefore, they should be given strong consideration for prosthetic fitting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".