Acceptable Rates of Treatment Failure in Osteomyelitis Involving the Diabetic Foot: A Survey of Infectious Diseases Consultants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shortening the duration of antibiotic therapy is an attractive strategy for delaying the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. The paucity of data about optimal treatment durations hinders adoption of this approach. This study used contingent valuation analysis to identify failure rates for treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis acceptable to infectious diseases consultants (IDCs). The Infectious Diseases Society of America's Emerging Infections Network (EIN) provided members with the case scenario and 1 of 10 failure rates; members were asked, assuming delivery of standard therapy, if they would accept or reject the given failure rate. The relationship between specific failure rates and the willingness of IDCs to accept them was analyzed. The median acceptable failure rate for EIN members was 18.1%; 75% of IDCs found a failure rate of 7.8% to be acceptable, and 25% found a rate of 28.4% to be acceptable. The methodology used in this study may prove useful in delineating acceptable treatment failure thresholds, an initial step in shortening durations of antimicrobial therapy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".