Identification and Prediction of Diabetic Sensorimotor Polyneuropathy Using Individual and Simple Combinations of Nerve Conduction Study Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP) is hindered by the need for complex nerve conduction study (NCS) protocols and lack of predictive biomarkers. We aimed to determine the performance of single and simple combinations of NCS parameters for identification and future prediction of DSP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 406 participants (61 with type 1 diabetes and 345 with type 2 diabetes) with a broad spectrum of neuropathy, from none to severe, underwent NCS to determine presence or absence of DSP for cross-sectional (concurrent validity) analysis. The 109 participants without baseline DSP were re-evaluated for its future onset (predictive validity). Performance of NCS parameters was compared by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AROC). RESULTS: At baseline there were 246 (60%) Prevalent Cases. After 3.9 years mean follow-up, 25 (23%) of the 109 Prevalent Controls that were followed became Incident DSP Cases. Threshold values for peroneal conduction velocity and sural amplitude potential best identified Prevalent Cases (AROC 0.90 and 0.83, sensitivity 80 and 83%, specificity 89 and 72%, respectively). Baseline tibial F-wave latency, peroneal conduction velocity and the sum of three lower limb nerve conduction velocities (sural, peroneal, and tibial) best predicted 4-year incidence (AROC 0.79, 0.79, and 0.85; sensitivity 79, 70, and 81%; specificity 63, 74 and 77%, respectively). DISCUSSION: Individual NCS parameters or their simple combinations are valid measures for identification and future prediction of DSP. Further research into the predictive roles of tibial F-wave latencies, peroneal conduction velocity, and sum of conduction velocities as markers of incipient nerve injury is needed to risk-stratify individuals for clinical and research protocols.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".