Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Lower Extremity Burns in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Patients: A Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus is an increasingly prevalent chronic disease that leads to long-term health consequences. Some long-term clinical sequelae of diabetes include coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, peripheral neuropathy, and impaired wound healing. These can increase hospital stay and complications such as wound infections and amputations among patients with lower extremity burns. A retrospective analysis was performed of all isolated lower extremity burns from a single tertiary burn care center from 2006 to 2017. Patients were stratified by diabetic status and the incidence of lower extremity amputations was the primary outcome. Multivariable regression was used to model the association between diabetes and amputations, adjusting for patient and injury characteristics. A total of 198 patients were identified as meeting inclusion criteria, 160 were nondiabetic and 38 were diabetic. Age was significantly different between nondiabetic and diabetic patients; mean age was 46 ± 18 vs 62 ± 17 years (P < .0001). Length of stay was also significantly different, median length of stay was 11 (interquartile range 7-15) vs 18 (interquartile range 12-24; P < .001), with diabetic patients staying longer. There was a significantly greater proportion of diabetic patients that had an amputation (control 4% vs diabetic 29%; P < .0001). After adjustment for patient and injury characteristics, there was a significant association between diabetes and amputation (P = .002). Among patients with isolated lower extremity burns, those with a preexisting condition of diabetes had a longer hospitalization and increased amputations, despite similar size of burn. Diabetes is an important risk factor to acknowledge in patients with these injuries to optimize care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".