Electrophysiological Evaluation of Peripheral and Autonomic Involvement in Leprosy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Motor and sensory nerve conductions, F responses, sympathetic skin responses and R-R interval variations (RRIV) were studied to determine the type of peripheral neuropathy among patients with leprosy. METHODS: Twenty-nine consecutive patients with leprosy (25 male, 4 female) hospitalized in the "Istanbul Leprosy Hospital" between January - December, 1999 were included in this study. Ten patients had borderline lepromatous leprosy, and 19 had lepromatous leprosy. None of the patients studied had the tuberculoid form. The mean age was 55 +/- 12 years. The control group consisted of 30 (26 male, 4 female) healthy volunteers (mean age: 58.1 +/- 7.8 years). All subjects included in the study underwent neurological examination and electrophysiological evaluation. Standard procedures were performed for evaluating sensory and motor conduction studies. Motor studies were carried out on both left and right median, ulnar, tibial and common peroneal nerves while median, ulnar, sural and superficial peroneal nerves were examined for sensory studies. Sympathetic skin response recordings on both hands and RRIV recordings on precordial region were done in order to evaluate the autonomic involvement. RESULTS: The lower extremity was found to be more severely affected than the upper, and sensory impairment predominated over motor. Of 58 upper limbs examined, no sympathetic skin responses was recorded in 46 (79.3%). Compared with the controls, the RRIVs of the leprosy patients were found to be reduced during both resting and deep forced hyperventilation. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that leprosy causes a predominantly axonal polyneuropathy that is more severe in the lower extremities. Sensory nerve damage is accompanied by autonomic involvement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".