MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308831903 · doi:10.53350/pjmhs22169633

Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Insights into Management and Prevention

2022· article· en· W4308831903 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Kashif Rafiq, Kamran Haider, Asif Ayub, Fouzia Jameel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusDiabetic footAmputationPeripheral neuropathyArterial diseaseDiseasePhysical examinationFoot (prosody)Intensive care medicineDiabetic neuropathyPhysical therapyVascular diseaseSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is one of the greatest thoughtful difficulties of diabetes, negatively affecting the patient's health and socioeconomic status. Around the world, diabetes prevalence is increasing in both developing and developed countries. There are several measures in place in most countries to limit diabetes complications. This review summarizes the pathogenic mechanisms that lead to diabetic foot and focuses on prevention and management. It may be possible to prevent diabetic foot ulcers and thus amputation risk by increasing physicians' awareness and ability to identify risky feet. Diabetes neuropathy, peripheral artery disease, and immune dysfunction are the three major contributing factors. In order to treat diabetic foot disease, a detailed history and physical examination are necessary. Diabetic neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease manifestations, such as diabetic foot ulcers and infections, should be examined during this examination. Prevention approaches should integrate a multidisciplinary method centered on patient education. Preventive efforts must, however, be sustained for a long time for them to be effective. Keywords: Diabetic foot; Ulceration; Neuropathy; Pathogenesis; Peripheral arterial disease

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207