A Qualitative Study of Factors Influencing the Decision to Have an Elective Amputation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some patients with a functionally impaired lower limb choose to have an elective amputation, whereas others do not. Functional outcomes do not favor either type of treatment, making this a complex decision. The experiences of patients who have chosen elective amputation were analyzed to identify the key factors in this decision-making process. METHODS: Patients from a tertiary care amputee clinic who had chosen to undergo elective amputation of a functionally impaired lower limb participated in the present study. A qualitative research design involved the use of one-on-one semi-structured interviews, which were audio recorded and transcribed. Narrative analysis was used by three researchers to provide triangulation. Recurrent key themes and patterns were described. Personal factors in the decision-making process were identified. RESULTS: Factors that had the largest impact on the decision-making process were pain, function, and participation. Body image, self identity, and the opinions of others had little influence. Satisfaction with the surgical outcome was related to how closely the result matched the patient's expectations. Patients who were better informed prior to surgery had more realistic expectations about living with an amputation. CONCLUSIONS: The severity of pain and the desire for improved function are strong drivers for patients deciding to undergo elective amputation of a functionally impaired lower extremity. While patients do not want others' opinions, information regarding life with an amputation helps to set realistic expectations regarding outcome.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it