MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2927185003 · doi:10.35963/hmjk.v4i6.137

HUBUNGAN INDEKS MASSA TUBUH (IMT) DENGAN RESIKO KAKI DIABETIK PADA PASIEN DIABETES MELITUS TIPE 2

2018· article· id· W2927185003 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tini Tini

Bibliographic record

VenueHusada Mahakam Jurnal Kesehatan · 2018
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meningkatnya kejadian diabetes melitus mengakibatkan pula meningkatnya komplikasi, salah satunya kaki diabetik. Kaki diabetik dapat disebabkan oleh berbagai faktor resiko diantaranya adalah faktor kegemukan yang ditandai dengan tingginya indeks massa tubuh (IMT). Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui hubungan antara hubungan indeks massa tubuh (IMT) dengan resiko kaki diabetik pada pasien diabetes melitus tipe 2. Penelitian ini menggunakan rancangan analitik korelasional dengan pendekatan cross sectional. Responden berjumlah 68 orang yang diambil secara purposive sampling. Indeks massa tubuh diperoeh dari pengukuran berat badan dan tinggi badan yang dihitung melalui rumus BB/TB2. Sedangkan resiko kaki diabetik diambil melalui pemeriksaan skrining resiko kaki diabetik dengan Screening Tools Inlow’s 60 second diabetic foot dari Canadian Association of Wound Care. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sebagian besar responden memiliki IMT ≥ 23 (73,5%) dan beresiko rendah terjadinya kaki diabetik (67,6%). Analisis statistik dengan uji Chi square diperoleh tidak ada hubungan antara indeks massa tubuh (IMT) dengan resiko kaki diabetik (p value 0,245). Meskipun beresiko rendah untuk mengalami kaki diabetik, namun terdapat beberapa faktor resiko yang dimiliki oleh pasien diantaranya penggunaan alas kaki yang salah, adanya kesemutan dan neuropati. Sehingga perlu dilakukan pengendalian kadar gula darah melalui pengontrolan berat badan dan perawatan kaki

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHusada Mahakam Jurnal KesehatanSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207