MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065212792 · doi:10.2174/157339906777950598

Diagnostic Tools for Diabetic Sensorimotor Polyneuropathy

2006· review· en· W2065212792 on OpenAlexaff
Keri A. Kles, Vera Bril

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Diabetes Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto General Hospital
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusPolyneuropathyDiabetic neuropathyIntensive care medicinePeripheral neuropathyDiseasePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes and its complications are major causes of mortality in the United States, with increasing rates of morbidity and increasing health care costs. Patients diagnosed with diabetes attempt to control cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and blood glucose levels to decrease the risk of diabetic microvascular complications (DMC), such as diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP) [also known as diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN)]. Despite control of these risk factors for vascular disease, many patients still develop DSP. Research investigating diabetic neuropathy holds promise for specific treatment of diabetic complications. Intrinsic to the success of new therapies is the accurate diagnosis and evaluation of DSP. Symptom scores, quantitative sensory testing and electrophysiology are some of the diagnostic tools to identify the signs and symptoms of DSP. Early detection of neuropathy enables clinicians to prevent long-term complications like ulcers and amputations in patients with diabetes. The focus of this review is to describe the composite of tools necessary for diagnosis of DSP.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Diabetes ReviewsSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207