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 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

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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