MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403874106 · doi:10.3390/s24216928

Smart Compression Sock for Early Detection of Diabetic Foot Ulcers

2024· article· en· W4403874106 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Billings, Julia M.W. Gee, Zinah Ghulam, Hussein A. Abdullah

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetic footCompression (physics)Foot (prosody)MedicineComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringDiabetes mellitusMaterials scienceComposite materialEndocrinologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevention of diabetic foot ulcers remains a critical challenge. This study evaluates a smart compression sock designed to address this issue by integrating temperature, plantar pressure, and blood oxygen sensors and monitoring data recorded by these sensors. The smart sock, developed with input from a certified Pedorthist, was tested on 20 healthy adult participants aged 16 to 53. It includes four temperature sensors and pressure sensors at common ulcer sites (first and fifth metatarsal heads, calcaneus, and hallux), and a blood oxygen sensor on the hallux. The sensors are monitored, and their transduced data are collected and stored through an app installed on a personal cell phone. The mobile app interface is user-friendly, providing intuitive navigation and easy access to the sensors' data. Using repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc tests, we analyzed the impact of various physical activities on physiological changes in the foot. The device effectively detected significant variations in blood oxygen, temperature, and pressure across six activities. Statistical analyses revealed significant differences based on activity type and sensor location. These results highlight the smart sock's sensitivity and accuracy, suggesting its potential to prevent diabetic foot ulcers. Further clinical trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy in a larger, more diverse population.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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