Psychosocial and personal predisposing factors of frostbite injury and associated amputation: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To date, systematic reviews of frostbite injuries predominantly focus on the treatment of frostbite, which narrows the scope of prevention and disregards the impact of frostbite-related predisposing factors. Comprehensively synthesizing relevant evidence to understand the psychosocial and personal predisposing factors to frostbite injury and related amputation would provide new insight into frostbite injury prevention. This review investigated the psychosocial and personal predisposing factors of frostbite injury and associated amputation. METHODS: Databases, including Embase, PubMed, and PsycINFO, were systematically searched for relevant studies. Two independent reviewers performed the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Inclusion criteria were studies that reported cold injury, predisposing factors for frostbite injury or related amputations, and assessed the relationship between a predisposing factor and the frostbite injury or amputation outcome based on a descriptive or inferential test. RESULTS: Thirty-six (36) studies met the inclusion criteria; 29 reported on both frostbite injury and amputations, and seven reported on only frostbite injury. Six psychosocial predisposing factors were observed in 28 out of the 36 studies reviewed, which included people experiencing homelessness, low socioeconomic status, alcohol intoxication/abuse, smoking, psychiatric disorders, and substance use. Personal predisposing factors identified included inadequate/improper winter clothing, delay in seeking medical care, and lack of knowledge of how to deal with the cold. CONCLUSIONS: While it is crucial to allocate additional resources and research toward improving the treatment of individuals affected by frostbite injuries and associated limb loss, it is equally important to direct efforts toward addressing the psychosocial and personal predisposing factors that predispose individuals to these injuries and amputations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".