Risk of contralateral lower limb amputation and death after initial lower limb amputation – a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lower limb amputation (LLA) is a complication of lower limb atherosclerosis, infection and tissue gangrene. Following ipsilateral LLA, the risk of major amputation of the contralateral limb or of death is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of a contralateral major LLA, comparing those with a non-malignant/non-traumatic ipsilateral major vs. ipsilateral minor LLA. METHODS: We used pre-existing linked administrative health databases for the study. Data were provided by the Institute for Clinical Evaluation Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario. This is a retrospective population-based cohort study across Ontario, Canada, 2002-2012. Cause-specific Cox regression models were used to obtain hazard ratios. Cumulative incidence functions were used to calculate the risk of contralateral major LLA and the risk of the competing event death. Individuals who did not survive at least 30 days after their first ipsilateral LLA were excluded since they were ineligible to have a contralateral LLA. RESULTS: 5,816 adults underwent an ipsilateral major and 4,143 an ipsilateral minor LLA. The incidences of contralateral major LLA were 4.8 and 2.2 (adjusted HR 2.41, 95% CI 2.04-2.84) after ipsilateral major and minor LLA, respectively. Incidence of death was 18.9 and 11.4 (adjusted HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13-1.31) following ipsilateral major and minor LLA, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is high incidence of a contralateral major LLA and even higher risk of death following the ipsilateral LLA. Healthcare professionals should develop strategies for contralateral limb preservation in individuals with existing ipsilateral LLA.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".