Predictive Laboratory Findings of Lower Extremity Amputation in Diabetic Patients: Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lower extremity amputation is a source of morbidity and mortality among diabetic patients. This meta-analysis aimed to identify significant laboratory data in patients with diabetic foot ulcer with high rates of lower extremity amputation. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. We extracted and evaluated 11 variables from the included studies based on amputation rates. This study used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the studies. The search strategy identified 101 publications from which we selected 16 articles for review. We identified HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, white blood cells, C-reactive protein, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate as predictive variables of higher major amputation rate. Although further investigation of long-term and prospective studies is needed, we identified 5 variables as predisposing factors for higher major amputation in diabetic patients through meta-analysis.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".