Guidelines for Diabetic Foot Care: Recommendations Endorsed by the Diabetes Committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foot infection is the most common reason for hospital admission of diabetic patients in the United States. Foot ulceration leads to deep infection, sepsis, and lower extremity amputation. Prophylactic foot care has been shown to decrease patient morbidity, decrease the utilization of expensive resources, and decrease the risk for amputation and premature death. The Diabetes Committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society has developed guidelines for the implementation of this type of prophylactic foot care. The screening examination includes evaluation for peripheral neuropathy, skin integrity, ulcers or wounds, deformity, vascular insufficiency, and footwear. Foot-specific patient education includes instruction on self-examination and foot care practices. Individualized foot-specific patient education is indicated for patients with peripheral neuropathy. Treatment is outlined based on risk level, which is determined by the presence of peripheral neuropathy, deformity, and ulcer history. Treatment combines patient education, orthoses, footwear, and a timetable for ongoing skin and nail care. Ulcer care includes paring of calluses, debridement of infected or nonviable tissue, dressings, and off-loading. Specialty assistance may be required from a vascular surgeon, orthopaedic surgeon, podiatrist, endocrinologist/diabetologist, infectious disease consultant, radiologist, and pedorthist.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it