Comorbidities in amputation: a systematic review of hemiplegia and lower limb amputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this review of the scientific literature was to investigate the incidence and prevalence of hemiplegia with lower limb amputation, and to identify outcomes following the dual disability of hemiplegia and amputation. METHODS: Electronic searching of the literature identified major studies examining the effects of hemiplegia on rehabilitation following amputation. Data were extracted and levels of evidence assigned for each subtopic area. RESULTS: The summary conclusions are Level 4 evidence. The prevalence of amputation and hemiplegia is 8-18% and amputation and hemiplegia occur most often in the same leg. Once individuals with hemiplegia and lower limb amputation are selected for prosthetic rehabilitation, rate of successful functional ambulation is greater than 58%. In general there is a lower rate of prosthetic success and independence with hemiplegia than without. Predictive factors associated with success include less severe hemiplegia, laterality of hemiplegia (ipsilateral and right side), transtibial level of amputation and absence of impaired mental function. There is wide variation in length of hospital stay, but a specialty multidisciplinary team reduces length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with dual disability of hemiplegia and amputation generally benefit from a prosthetic rehabilitation program. Further study on predictive factors for outcome would be beneficial. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: • The prevalence of hemiplegia with lower limb amputation ranges from 8 to 18%, most frequently affecting the same leg. • The majority of patients attain successful functional levels of ambulation with prosthetic rehabilitation, although lower rates than nonhemiplegic patients. • Predictive factors associated with greater success include less severe hemiplegia, ipsilateral hemiplegia, transtibial level of amputation and absence of impaired mental function.
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".