Prevalence of lower-extremity amputation among patients with diabetes mellitus: Is height a factor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Taller diabetic patients are at higher risk of peripheral sensory loss than shorter diabetic patients and thus may be at increased risk of lower-extremity ulcers and amputation. In a large telephone survey, the prevalence of lower-extremity amputation among patients with diabetes mellitus was determined and the association between height and lower-extremity amputation evaluated. METHODS: Of 256,036 patients identified from hospital and clinic databases who had a diagnosis of diabetes and were seen at those institutions between 1995 and 1998, 128,572 were randomly selected to be interviewed by telephone between 1995 and 2002. Of the 93,484 patients who agreed to be interviewed, 386 were excluded (age < 18 years); this left 93,116 diabetec patients (42,970 men and 50,146 women) for inclusion in the study. RESULTS: Of the 93,116 patients interviewed, 3259 (3.5%) had type 1 diabetes. Lower-extremity amputation was performed in 1.7% and 0.8% of the patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The prevalence of amputation did not differ significantly between men and women with type 1 diabetes but was significantly higher among men than among women with type 2 diabetes (0.9% v. 0.7%). Height (every 10-cm increment) was significantly associated with lower-extremity amputation (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.32). In a subgroup of 9295 patients for whom data on fasting plasma glucose levels and dyslipidemia were available, and after additional adjustment for these 2 variables, body height remained an independent predictor of lower-extremity amputation (adjusted OR for every 10 cm of height 1.79, 95% CI 1.14-2.82). INTERPRETATION: Height is an independent predictor of lower-extremity amputation among patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".