Prosthesis use and the change in activities of daily living following below‐knee amputation in patients undergoing hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing hemodialysis are at an increased risk of peripheral arterial disease, amputation of lower extremities, and decline of activities of daily living. Although a prosthesis is used to support activities of daily living, no previous study reported the association of prosthesis use with the change in activities of daily living following leg amputation in hemodialysis patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the changes in activities of daily living following amputation between those who created a prosthesis and those who did not. METHODS: This study was a single-center, retrospective observational study. We screened medical records for hemodialysis patients who underwent below-knee amputation (BKA) and activities of daily living were examined two times with the functional independence measure (FIM) before BKA and at discharge. They were divided into two groups according to the creation of a prosthesis. FINDINGS: We identified 28 eligible patients, among whom 12 patients used a prosthesis (prosthesis group), whereas 16 patients did not (non-prosthesis group). The FIM score was significantly decreased following BKA in the non-prosthesis group, whereas it was not significantly changed in the prosthesis group. The change in FIM score was significantly different between the two groups, and the difference remained significant after considering potential confounders. DISCUSSION: The results of this study showed that use versus nonuse of a prosthesis was an independent factor associated with changes in activities of daily living in hemodialysis patients following BKA, supporting the important role of a prosthesis in maintaining activities of daily living in hemodialysis patients who need BKA.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".