International Neuropathy Workshop of 2009: Introduction to the final reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuropathies are amongst the most common of the long-term complications of diabetes, affecting up to 50% of patients. Their clinical features vary immensely and patients may present with a wide spectrum of specialties, from neurology to urology, for example, or from cardiology to podiatry. Neuropathies are typically characterized by a progressive loss of nerve fibres which may affect both of the principal divisions of the peripheral nervous system. The epidemiology and natural history of the diabetic neuropathies remain poorly defined. The International Consensus Workshop in Toronto in 2009 arose from the fact that at the moment there are no clear, universally accepted guidelines regarding the definition of diabetic neuropathies. This has resulted in a massive variation in how neuropathy is diagnosed in different centres and countries. A preliminary summary report of the Toronto meeting was published in 2010. The series of papers published in this issue of Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews are the detailed reports that came from each sub-group of this Consensus panel. These reviews cover the problems with definitions and classification of neuropathy, the management of painful neuropathy and then the sub-group of small fibre neuropathies. There are also 3 papers on the autonomic neuropathies, covering cardiovascular autonomic neuropathies, as well as other areas of the autonomic neuropathies including gastrointestinal, urogenital and pseudomotor neuropathies. This series of papers will give the reader detailed information on the diverse aspects of diabetic neuropathies, their measurement and management, and will also assist in the selection of appropriate measures of both autonomic and somatic nerve function in clinical trials. This is clearly work in progress as diagnostic criteria for diabetic neuropathies are likely to evolve with developments in the field.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.118 | 0.085 |
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".