Longitudinal Assessment of Neuropathy in Diabetes using novel ophthalmic MARKers (LANDMark): Baseline findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Purpose</b> Over the past decade, corneal nerve morphology and corneal sensation threshold have been explored as potential surrogate markers for the evaluation of diabetic neuropathy. We present the baseline findings of a Longitudinal Assessment of Neuropathy in Diabetes using novel ophthalmic Markers (<i>LANDMark</i>). <b>Methods</b> The <i>LANDMark</i>Study is a 5-year, two-site, natural history (observational) study of individuals with Type 1 diabetes stratified into those with (<i>T1W</i>) and without (<i>T1WO</i>) neuropathy according to the Toronto criteria, and control subjects. All study participants undergo detailed annual assessment of neuropathy including corneal nerve parameters measured using corneal confocal microscopy and corneal sensitivity measured using non-contact corneal esthesiometry. <b>Results</b> 396 eligible individuals (208 in Brisbane and 188 in Manchester) were assessed: 76 T1W, 166 T1WO and 154 controls. Corneal sensation threshold (mbars) was significantly higher in T1W (1.0 ± 1.1) than T1WO (0.7 ± 0.7) and controls (0.6 ± 0.4) (P=0.002); post-hoc analysis (PHA) revealed no difference between T1WO and controls (Tukey HSD, P=0.502). Corneal nerve fiber length (mm/mm2) (CNFL) was lower in T1W (13.8 ± 6.4) than T1WO (19.1 ± 5.8) and controls (23.2 ± 6.3) (P<0.001); PHA revealed CNFL to be lower in T1W than T1WO, and lower in both of these groups than controls (P<0.001). Corneal nerve branch density (branches/mm2) (CNBD) was significantly lower in T1W (40 ± 32) than T1WO (62 ± 37) and controls (83 ± 46) (P<0.001); PHA showed CNBD was lower in T1W than T1WO, and lower in both groups than controls (P<0.001). Alcohol and cigarette consumption did not differ between groups, although age, BMI, BP, waist circumference, HbA1c, albumin-creatinine ratio, and cholesterol were slightly greater in T1W than T1WO (p<0.05). Some site differences were observed. <b>Conclusions </b> The <i>LANDMark</i> baseline findings confirm that corneal sensitivity and corneal nerve morphometry can detect differences in neuropathy status in individuals with Type 1 diabetes and healthy controls. Corneal nerve morphology is significantly abnormal even in diabetic patients ‘without neuropathy’ compared to control participants. Results of the longitudinal trial will assess the capability of these tests for monitoring change in these parameters over time as potential surrogate markers for neuropathy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".