Outcomes and prognosis of diabetic foot ulcers treated by an interdisciplinary team in <scp>Canada</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the wound healing outcomes of patients with a plantar diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) treated with an interdisciplinary team approach, and to identify associated variables. A retrospective observational cohort study of 140 adult patients, with a plantar DFU, treated between 2012 and 2018 at a wound care clinic of a University affiliated hospital was conducted. Predictive and explicative analyses were conducted with logistic multivariate methods and with a Receiver Operating Characteristics curve. The best predictor of wound healing at 3 months was a 41.8% wound size reduction at 4 weeks (AUC: 0.86; sensitivity: 83.1%; specificity: 67.2%, positive predictive value: 72.8%; negative predictive value: 78.9%; positive and negative likelihood ratios: 2.53 and 0.25, respectively). Main baseline variables independently associated with this predictor were: a monophasic Doppler waveform (OR 7.52, 95% CI [2.64-21.39]), cigarette smoking (OR 4.7, 95% CI [1.44-15.29]), and male gender (OR 3.58, 95% CI [1.30-9.87]). The health care provider should be cautious and intensify its management of DFUs particularly with patients of male gender; smoking, having a monophasic waveform with a hand-held Doppler, and not achieving a minimal 41.8% wound area reduction at 4 weeks of treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".