Return to work after occupational and non-occupational lower extremity amputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Factors impacting on return to work (RTW) after lower extremity amputation are important in occupational rehabilitation. AIMS: Our objective was to compare RTW in patients who had traumatic work-related amputation with amputations from other causes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with participants employed at the time of amputation and at least 1 year post-discharge from amputee rehabilitation. The primary outcome measure was RTW. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-seven amputees were included with 69% returning to work. Amputation reason did not impact on RTW (odds ratio [OR] 1.83, P = non-significant). Trans-femoral amputees were less likely to RTW (OR 0.22, P < 0.05). Years since amputation (OR 1.20, P = 0.001) and Reintegration to Normal Living Index (OR 1.05, P < 0.001) were predictive of RTW after adjusting for other covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Amputation aetiology did not impact on RTW. Years since amputation, level of amputation and Return to Normal Living Index were associated with RTW which may be important to consider in RTW prognosis and planning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".