Outcomes of Individuals with Transfemoral and Contralateral Transtibial Amputation due to Dysvascular Etiologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the functional outcome of individuals with transfemoral and contralateral transtibial amputations secondary to peripheral vascular disease. METHODS: A retrospective chart review followed by phone interview. The primary outcome measures were the discharge 2-minute walk test, Frenchay Activities Index, and the Houghton Scale. RESULTS: There were 31 dysvascular individuals identified to have a combination of transfemoral/transtibial (TF/TT) amputation admitted to our institution for rehabilitation from February 1998 to June 2007. The mortality at follow up was 68%. There were eight surviving amputees. The average 2-minute walk test score was 31.9 m at the time of discharge from our inpatient program. Of these, the average Frenchay Activities Index was 15.3. The average Houghton Scale score for use of the transtibial prosthesis alone was 2.1. The average Houghton Scale score for use of both prostheses was 1.5. Comparisons between groups based on initial amputation level revealed a significant difference of being fitted with a transfemoral prosthesis. Those whom initially had a TT amputation were less likely to ultimately be fitted with a TF prosthesis (X(2) (1,n=31) = 4.76, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The overall functional outcome of individuals with a combination of TF/TT amputation due to dysvascular causes is poor. These individuals have a low level of ambulation, activity, and prosthetic use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".