Comparison of vibration perception thresholds obtained with the Neurothesiometer and the CASE IV and relationship to nerve conduction studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Vibration perception thresholds (VPTs) are used frequently to assess somatosensory pathways in clinical trials. Different equipment, testing paradigms, and stimulation sites produce varying results which make comparisons between trials and patient populations challenging. Information comparing the VPT obtained with the Neurothesiometer with that with the Vibratron is available, but not for a similar comparison with the CASE IV (computer-assisted sensory examination device). METHODS: Subjects (n = 478) including reference, non-neuropathic subjects with diabetes mellitus (DM), and diabetic patients with mild, moderate and severe diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP) had VPTs measured with the CASE IV and Neurothesiometer, as well as standard sural nerve conduction studies (NCS), all performed during the same half-day. The dorsum of the foot was used as the site of stimulation for the CASE IV VPT determination and the distal phalanx of the first toe for the Neurothesiometer. RESULTS: VPTs by the CASE IV and the Neurothesiometer compared moderately by linear regression analyses (R2 = 0.547, P < 0.0001), and by 95% confidence intervals. Sensitivity for the diagnosis of mild DSP was 70% with the Neurothesiometer and 49% with the CASE IV. VPTs determined by either the Neurothesiometer or the CASE IV correlated with similar agreement to the sural nerve action potential amplitude as determined by nerve conduction studies (NCS) (R2 = 0.456 and 0.461, respectively, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated a significant correlation of VPT values in different stages of DSP obtained by the two methods. The Neurothesiometer was more sensitive for the diagnosis of DSP, particularly in those with mild neuropathy. Similar correlations between VPTs and electrophysiological parameters were observed, indicating that both methods are valid, and thus the Neurothesiometer may be preferable due to the ease and rapidity of testing by this method.
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".