MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reproducibility of in vivo corneal confocal microscopy as a novel screening test for early diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy

2011· article· en· W1925961142 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetic Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReproducibilityConfocal microscopyIn vivoPolyneuropathyOphthalmologyConfocalBiomedical engineeringPathologyOpticsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: With the goal of identifying a valid biomarker of early diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy, we aimed to identify the most reliable in vivo corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) parameter for detection of abnormality of small nerve fibre morphology. METHODS: Cross-sectional examination of 46 subjects (26 with Type 1 diabetes and 20 healthy volunteers) examined by corneal confocal microscopy for intra- and interobserver reproducibility by the intraclass correlation coefficient method. Corneal nerve fibre density, nerve branch density, nerve fibre length and tortuosity were measured on the same day that subjects underwent clinical and electrophysiological examination. RESULTS: The 26 subjects with Type 1 diabetes had mean age and diabetes duration 42.8 ± 16.9 and 22.7 ± 16.4 years, respectively. Twelve of those subjects (46%) did not meet criteria for diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy, while five (19%) had mild, three (12%) had moderate and six (23%) had severe diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy. None of the healthy volunteers (mean age 41.4 ± 17.3 years) had polyneuropathy. Re-examination of selected corneal confocal microscopy images or sets of 40 images yielded very good to excellent intraclass correlation coefficients for all parameters. However, only one parameter (corneal nerve fibre length) emerged with consistently very good reproducibility using a clinically relevant 'study-level' protocol of subject re-examination (intra-observer intraclass correlation coefficient 0.72; interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient 0.73). Despite no differences in intraclass correlation coefficient between subgroups, corneal nerve fibre length was significantly lower (14.76 vs. 16.15 mm/mm(2), P = 0.04) in those with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Development of corneal confocal microscopy may need to focus on the measurement of corneal nerve fibre length, as it appears to have superior reliability in comparison with other parameters, and as evidence exists for its potential as a clinical biomarker of early diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.247 · 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