The impact of foot ulceration and amputation on mortality in diabetic patients. I: From ulceration to death, a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A great deal of emphasis, clinical and financial, is placed on limb salvage efforts in diabetic patients suffering from lower extremity ulceration. This is because of the impression that amputation in such patients may be a proximal cause of death. While amputation is certainly a negative clinical outcome, it is not entirely clear that it causes death. In this systematic review, we examine the available literature to attempt to understand the role that the ulceration itself may play in mortality. In brief, we searched for human studies in OVID, CINAHL and the COCHRANE CENTRAL DATABASE from 1980 to 2013, looking for articles related to ulcer or wound of the foot, in patients with diabetes or peripheral vascular disease, and death. We looked for articles with 5 years of follow-up, or Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year mortality, and excluded reviews and letters. Articles were assessed for quality and potential bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We find that while the patient populations studied varied widely in terms of demographics and comorbidities, limiting generalisability, 5-year mortality rates after ulceration were around 40%. Risk factors for death commonly identified were increased age, male gender, peripheral vascular disease and renal disease.
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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".