Reproducibility of in vivo corneal confocal microscopy as a novel screening test for early diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".