Prediction of Incident Diabetic Neuropathy Using the Monofilament Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the specific monofilament examination score that predicts the subsequent 4-year incidence of diabetic neuropathy with the highest degree of diagnostic accuracy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Longitudinal follow-up of 175 of 197 (89%) participants in the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Cohort without baseline neuropathy for incident neuropathy. We examined the baseline monofilament examination score (and other simple sensory screening tests) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: Incident diabetic neuropathy developed in 50 (29%) participants over a mean follow-up of 4.1 years (interquartile range 2.6-7.1 years). Although male sex, longer diabetes duration, taller height, and higher blood pressure at baseline were associated with incident neuropathy, the strongest association was with a lower baseline monofilament score (score out of 8 was 3.7 +/- 2.5 for incident neuropathy vs. 5.7 +/- 2.3 for those who did not develop neuropathy; P < 0.001). The optimal threshold score for risk of incident neuropathy was <or=5 sensate stimuli out of 8, with 72% sensitivity, 64% specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios of 2.5 and 0.35, and positive and negative predictive values of 87 and 46%, respectively (chi(2) = 20.7, P < 0.001). Area under the ROC curve was significantly greater for the monofilament examination compared with that for other simple sensory tests. CONCLUSIONS: A simple threshold of <or=5 sensate stimuli out of 8 discriminates 4-year risk of diabetic neuropathy with acceptable operating characteristics. Although there are limitations in its specificity for prediction of future neuropathy onset, the monofilament examination is appropriate as a simple diabetic neuropathy screening instrument generalizable to the clinical setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".