Importance of pain evaluation for more accurate diagnosis of painful diabetic polyneuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Pain is a common problem in diabetic neuropathy, but relatively little has been published regarding the extent to which it needs to be addressed in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess neuropathic pain profile and its association with quantitative sensory testing in painful diabetic polyneuropathy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Altogether, 61 consecutive diabetic inpatients with symmetric neuropathic complaints were enrolled. Clinical neurological examination and quantitative sensory testing (QST) were performed. Patients were interviewed using the Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) and filled in the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). RESULTS: Of all patients, 49 (80.3%) had clinical diabetic polyneuropathy. Only 17 of these patients complained of lower extremity pain on an initial interview, while 27 marked it in the MPQ. The intensity of deep and superficial pain did not differ, but patients rated deep pain as more unpleasant than superficial (6.27±2.37 vs. 4.30±1.42 on the NPS, P=0.034). Superficial pain NPS items tended to correlate with QST results, while deep pain items did not. Only female gender (OR=7.87) and lower glycosylated hemoglobin level (OR=0.65) were predictive of pain in case of diabetic neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Standard pain questionnaires were useful in identifying pain sufferers. At the same intensity, deep neuropathic pain was more unpleasant than superficial. Pain manifestation was associated with female gender and lower level of glycosylated hemoglobin.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".