MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081594900 · doi:10.1002/dmrr.441

Diagnosing and treating diabetic foot infections

2004· review· en· W2081594900 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetic footMedicineIntensive care medicineFoot (prosody)Diabetes mellitusHyperbaric oxygenAntibiotic therapyComplicationClinical PracticeAntibioticsSurgeryPhysical therapyBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foot infections are a common, complex and costly complication of diabetes. We have made considerable progress in establishing consensus definitions for defining infection. Similarly, we have learned much about the appropriate ways to diagnose both soft tissue and bone infections. Accompanying these advances have been improvements in our knowledge of the proper approaches to antibiotic (and surgical) therapy for diabetic foot infections. Furthermore, investigators have explored the value of various adjunctive therapies, especially granulocyte colony stimulating factors and hyperbaric oxygen, for improving outcomes. This paper presents a summary of a minisymposium on infection of the diabetic foot that was held at the fourth International Symposium on the Diabetic Foot, in Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.318 · 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