Corneal Confocal Microscopy Predicts 4-Year Incident Peripheral Neuropathy in Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study determined if deficits in corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) assessed using corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) can predict future onset of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CNFL and a range of other baseline measures were compared between 90 nonneuropathic patients with type 1 diabetes who did or did not develop DPN after 4 years. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the capability of single and combined measures of neuropathy to predict DPN. RESULTS: DPN developed in 16 participants (18%) after 4 years. Factors predictive of 4-year incident DPN were lower CNFL (P = 0.041); longer duration of diabetes (P = 0.002); higher triglycerides (P = 0.023); retinopathy (higher on the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale) (P = 0.008); nephropathy (higher albumin-to-creatinine ratio) (P = 0.001); higher neuropathy disability score (P = 0.037); lower cold sensation (P = 0.001) and cold pain (P = 0.027) thresholds; higher warm sensation (P = 0.008), warm pain (P = 0.024), and vibration (P = 0.003) thresholds; impaired monofilament response (P = 0.003); and slower peroneal (P = 0.013) and sural (P = 0.002) nerve conduction velocity. CCM could predict the 4-year incident DPN with 63% sensitivity and 74% specificity for a CNFL threshold cutoff of 14.1 mm/mm(2) (area under ROC curve = 0.66, P = 0.041). Combining neuropathy measures did not improve predictive capability. CONCLUSIONS: DPN can be predicted by various demographic, metabolic, and conventional neuropathy measures. The ability of CCM to predict DPN broadens the already impressive diagnostic capabilities of this novel ophthalmic marker.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".