MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401615804 · doi:10.3390/jof10080577

Diabetic Foot and Fungal Infections: Etiology and Management from a Dermatologic Perspective

2024· review· en· W4401615804 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fungi · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMediprobe Research (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusEtiologyDiabetic footContext (archaeology)Intensive care medicineAmputationDermatologyFoot (prosody)PopulationAngiopathyDiabetic foot ulcerDiabetic neuropathySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a significant global concern. Many diabetic patients will experience complications due to angiopathy, neuropathy, and immune dysfunction, namely diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) and diabetic foot infections (DFI), which can result in lower limb amputation and potentially death. The prevalence of common superficial fungal infections, such as tinea pedis and onychomycosis, can directly increase a diabetic patient's risk of developing both DFU and DFI. In this review article, we discuss the etiology of diabetic foot complications as well as considerations for both screening and management. We also discuss the role of the dermatologist within a multidisciplinary care team in prescribing and managing treatments for tinea pedis and onychomycosis infections within this patient population. We believe that reducing the burden of these fungal infections in the context of the diabetic foot will help reduce DFU and DFI complications and their associated morbidity and mortality.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.322 · 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