MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005871454 · doi:10.2337/db2020-01

Diagnosis and Management of Diabetic Foot Infections

2020· article· en· W3005871454 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J.M. Boulton, David G. Armstrong, Matthew J. Hardman, Matthew Malone, John M. Embil, Christopher E. Attinger, Benjamin A. Lipsky, Javier Aragón‐Sánchez, Ho Kwong, Gregory S. Schultz, Robert S. Kirsner

Bibliographic record

VenueADA Clinical Compendia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetic footOsteomyelitisDebridement (dental)MedicineCompendiumAntibioticsSurgical debridementIntensive care medicineSurgeryDiabetes mellitusBiologyMicrobiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first sections herein cover the impact of infection on healing of experimental wounds (p. 2), the importance of biofilms (p. 4), and a general overview of the microbiology of DFIs (p. 6). Although debridement of DFUs was covered in the first compendium, we deemed it important enough to include here as well, given its pivotal role in the management of DFIs. Subsequent sections cover the management of infected DFUs (p. 9) and discussions of antibiotics versus surgery for osteomyelitis (p. 12) and the OVIVA trial (p. 13). There is little doubt that the OVIVA trial will challenge the current management of osteomyelitis, in which IV antibiotics are still commonly used. The remaining sections cover potential topical treatments for DFIs (p. 15) and the role of modern technology in infection control (p. 17).

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations96
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueADA Clinical CompendiaSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207