Plasma vitamin D status and its association with biochemical, clinical and humanistic outcomes in diabetic foot infection patients: a prospective observational study in a tertiary healthcare facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The study aimed to determine the association of vitamin D3 status with biochemical, clinical, and quality of life (QoL) in diabetic foot infection (DFI) patients.Research Design and Methods A longitudinal study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Baseline biochemical (glycemic, renal, plasma vitamin D3), clinical, and QoL data of the DFI patients were collected. Patients were followed up with over the telephone for four months to assess clinical outcomes (healed/not healed). A subgroup analysis was performed to investigate the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation.Results Eighty-nine DFI patients were enrolled, with a median age of 55 years and a male predominance (89.9%). A significant association between vitamin D3 levels and clinical outcome was not observed (p = 0.66). A moderate correlation was observed with the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (r = 0.24, p = 0.02). Regarding QoL, emotions (domain) were significantly associated with vitamin D3 levels (p < 0.01). The subgroup analysis showed that vitamin D3 supplements did not affect the clinical outcome.Conclusion The plasma vitamin D3 levels and vitamin D3 supplements do not significantly affect the biochemical, clinical, and humanistic outcomes, indicating vitamin D3 did not have a positive effect on DFI patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".