MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036696658 · doi:10.1002/mus.20423

Sural sensory action potential identifies diabetic peripheral neuropathy responders to therapy

2005· article· en· W2036696658 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron I. Vinik, Vera Bril, William J. Litchy, Karen Price, Edward J. Bastyr

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSural nerveMedicineSnapPeripheral neuropathyNerve conduction velocityCompound muscle action potentialInternal medicinePeripheralDiabetic neuropathySurgeryDiabetes mellitusElectrophysiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) amenable to therapy is a challenge. To determine whether the amplitude of the sural sensory nerve action potential (sural SNAP) reflects the severity of DPN, an analysis was performed on 205 patients with DPN, identified by an abnormal vibration detection threshold (VDT), who were enrolled in a multinational clinical trial investigating ruboxistaurin (RBX) mesylate. Nerve conduction velocity and response amplitude and latency were measured and compared. VDT was significantly lower in those with preserved sural SNAPs (n = 128) than in those in whom they were absent (n = 77; 21.5 vs. 22.7 JND units, P = 0.002). Thus, preserved sural SNAP denoted less severe DPN. Logistic regression analyses evaluating baseline characteristics, HbA(1c), and baseline symptom scores identified only DPN duration as a factor that might contribute to the presence of sural SNAP (P = 0.004; OR = 0.896). For patients with abnormal VDT, preserved sural SNAP identifies a patient population with less severe DPN who may respond to therapeutic intervention in clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations59
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207