MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168613304 · doi:10.2337/dc10-1775

Trends in Initial Lower Extremity Amputation Rates Among Veterans Health Administration Health Care System Users From 2000 to 2004

2011· article· en· W2168613304 on OpenAlexaff
Chin‐Lin Tseng, Mangala Rajan, Donald R. Miller, Jean‐Philippe Lafrance, Leonard Pogach

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmputationAdministration (probate law)Veterans AffairsDiabetes mellitusGerontologyHealth carePhysical therapyEmergency medicineFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate temporal trends in rates of initial lower extremity amputation (ILEA) among patients with diabetes in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective administrative data analysis of VHA clinic users with diabetes in fiscal years (FY) 2000 to 2004 (1 October 1999-30 September 2004). We calculated annual age- and sex-standardized rates of initial major, minor, and total amputations for the overall population and for various racial/ethnic groups (African Americans, Hispanics, and whites). Trends in ILEA risk were evaluated with and without adjustment for demographic characteristics and other potential risk factors, including presence of microvascular and macrovascular diseases, and antiglycemic treatment. RESULTS: Study populations of VHA patients with diabetes and without prior amputations ranged from 405,580 in FY 2000 to 739,377 in FY 2004. Age- and sex-standardized ILEA rates decreased by 34% (7.08/1,000 patients in FY 2000 to 4.65/1,000 patients in FY 2005) during the 5-year period. Minor and major amputation rates decreased by 33% (4.59 to 3.06/1,000) and 36% (2.49 to 1.59/1,000), respectively. Of major amputations, below-knee rates decreased from 1.08 to 0.87/1,000 (-19%), and above-knee decreased from 1.41 to 0.72/1,000 (-49%). Similar trends were seen for all racial groups. ILEA risk decreased by 28% (odds ratio 0.72 [95% CI 0.68-0.75]) when FY 2004 was compared with FY 2000 in the model, adjusting for demographic characteristics. This risk decrease was 22% in the model adjusting for all independent variables (odds ratio 0.78 [95% CI 0.74-0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: Downward 5-year trends in ILEA rates were observed for all amputation levels and among all racial groups, even after adjustment for risk differences over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207