Distant metastatic foci of infection in adult patients with diabetic foot – not as rare as we think?: case series and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".