Abstract P155: Differential Incidence Trends In Non-traumatic Lower Limb Amputations In The Province Of Quebec, Canada: Does The Reduction Applies Equally In Both Sexes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Non-traumatic lower limb amputations (LLA) represent an important complication of diabetes (DM) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD). In Quebec, Canada, the latest data between 1996 to 2004 suggested a reduction in the incidence of LLA while other Canadian provinces observed a recent increase between 2010 and 2016. Our objective was to update the incidence trends of LLA in Quebec from fiscal years 2006 to 2019. Methods: Age-standardized incidence of LLA among individuals ≥40 years was assessed using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System (n=4,527,533 in 2019). The mean age of incident cases and the presence / duration of DM and/or PAD was collected. Estimations were presented for all, by sexes and by types of LLA (minor: below the knee; major: knee and above), with 99% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Between 2006 and 2019, incident cases of LLA increased from 818 to 1,099 but age-standardized incidence remained stable (Figure 1) for both sexes. Men had a higher age-standardized incidence of LLA then women (32.7 per 100,000 [99% CI: 29.7-35.9] vs 12.9 per 100,000 [11.2-14.9] in 2019). From 2006 to 2019, the age-standardized incidence of major LLA showed a relative decrease of 48% while minor LLA remained stable (Figure 1). Reduction in age-standardized incidence of major LLA was attributable to men (3.8 per 100,000 [2.7-5.3] to 1.7 per 100,000 [1.1-2.6]). The mean age of incident cases went from 68.2 to 69.5 years from 2006 to 2019 (72.4 for women and 68.3 for men in 2019). Ninety-eight percent of LLA had DM, while 95% had PAD and 95% had both in 2019. Between 2006 and 2019, the average time between the first LLA and DM diagnosis increased from 7.0 to 14.7 years and from 2.0 to 2.6 years for PAD. Conclusions: Although the age-standardized incidence of LLA is stable, men remain at higher risk then women. The portrait of incident cases is changing towards an older average age, longer DM duration and a reduction of major LLA. These results emphasize the importance to improve further preventive care of LLA in Quebec.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".