MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407302405 · doi:10.12968/jowc.2022.0166

Ulcerated tophaceous gout of the foot: a case report and retrospective chart review

2025· article· en· W4407302405 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Iglesias-Girard, Justine Lafleur-Careau, Jérôme Patry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric Acid
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalOsteoporosis CanadaUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGoutOsteomyelitisSurgeryDebridement (dental)Foot (prosody)Presentation (obstetrics)Retrospective cohort studyWound careSoft tissueConservative managementDermatologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ulcerated tophaceous gout is an uncommon presentation of the lower limbs. Treatment of these wounds can be a challenge, as their optimal management remains to be determined. Therefore, a retrospective analysis of medical charts between 2015 and 2021 was conducted at a wound clinic of a university-affiliated hospital to determine the characteristics of patients treated for tophaceous wounds, their evolution and treatment. We report a total of five patients with ulcerated tophaceous gout of the foot who initially presented predominantly with soft tissue infection or osteomyelitis. All progressed well with local wound care, including conservative sharp debridement of the tophi and rapid initiation of urate-lowering therapy. Therefore, a diagnosis of tophi should be considered in an ulceration of the first metatarsophalangeal joint or other toes when whitish-chalky material is present, even if the patient was not previously known to have gout. Tophi ulceration is a rare complication; however, prompt diagnosis and management are important to avoid destruction of the underlying bone structures.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wound CareSame topicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric AcidFrench-language works237,207