MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118916476 · doi:10.1080/23744235.2020.1868569

Distant metastatic foci of infection in adult patients with diabetic foot – not as rare as we think?: case series and review of the literature

2021· review· en· W3118916476 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfectious Diseases · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsImpactHamilton General HospitalHamilton Health SciencesMemorial University of NewfoundlandJuravinski HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetic footDiabetes mellitusFoot (prosody)Retrospective cohort studyDiabetic foot ulcerInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Diabetic foot is one of the common complications of diabetes mellitus. We report clinical and microbiological characteristics and outcomes of cases with distant metastatic foci of infection arising from diabetic foot.Methods Retrospective review of adult patients with diabetic foot infection or diabetic foot ulcer who demonstrated distant metastatic foci of infection between August 2017 and December 2019. We performed a literature search of similar cases published until June 2020.Results Twelve patients with diabetic foot infection or diabetic foot ulcer with distant metastatic foci of infection were identified. The median age of patients was 67.5 years (range 60.5–73.5 years) and 11 males. The most common distant metastatic foci of infection included endocarditis (n = 7) followed by septic arthritis (n = 3) and spine infections (n = 2). Five patients had multiple site and organ involvement. Staphylococcus aureus was the only organism isolated from blood (n = 11), diabetic foot (n = 7), and metastatic foci (n = 8) sources. Three patients died and three had a relapse of distant metastatic foci of infection. Thirty-eight cases were identified in the literature with similar characteristics.Conclusions Prevalence of distant metastatic foci of infection in adult patients with diabetic foot and burden of illness, in terms of mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay, appears to be underreported in the literature. A large prospective study is needed to assess the true prevalence of complications, associated risk factors, outcomes and prognostic factors.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.281 · 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