The relationship of the transcutaneous oxygen tension, pulse waves and systolic pressures to the risk for limb amputation in patients with peripheral arterial disease and skin ulcers or gangrene.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Our aim was to determine how the risk associated with presence of low transcutaneous oxygen tension (tcPO2) for subsequent major amputation in patients with skin ulcers or gangrene and peripheral arterial disease, compares with the risks associated with low peripheral pressures and low amplitude of pulse waves. Secondly, we determined whether combination of measurements of oxygen tension with that of the pressures or pulse wave amplitude predicts amputation better than pressure, wave or oxygen tension measurements alone. METHODS: Measurements were carried out to obtain foot tcPO2, ankle and toe pressures, pressure indices, and toe pulse wave amplitude in 75 limbs with skin lesions and arterial disease of 66 patients referred to the vascular laboratory. These variables were related to the risk of a subsequent major amputation during a median time of 4.2 years, using Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Low oxygen tension was associated with increased risk of amputation (relative risks 2.16 and 2.55 for tcPO2 < or = 10 mmHg and < or = 20 mmHg, respectively, P<0.05; relative risk 2.22 for tcPO2 < or = 30 mmHg, P=0.07). The relative risks associated with cutoff values of ankle and toe pressures and pressure indices varied from 2.53 (toe < or = 20 mmHg, P<0.05) to 5.83 (ankle < or = 50 mmHg, P<0.001) and the relative risk associated with low wave amplitude (< or = 4 mm) was 3.41, P<0.01. The cutoff values of tcPO2 became insignificant when included in the models together with each pressure variable or pulse amplitude separately. In contrast, wave amplitude remained significantly associated with increased risk of amputation after controlling for each pressure variable (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: TcPO2 < or = 10 mmHg and < or = 20 mmHg are related significantly to increased risk of amputation in patients with skin lesions and arterial disease, but these relative risks are similar in magnitude or smaller than those associated with low cutoff values of pressures, pressure indices or pulse wave amplitude. Low wave amplitude does provide significant information in addition to peripheral pressures with respect to the risk of amputation. On the other hand, low tcPO2 does not provide significant information in addition to peripheral pressures or pulse wave amplitude.
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".