A systematic review of the relationship between glycemic control and necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum in patients with diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association of specific skin disorders with diabetes mellitus (DM) has been well established. Current literature suggests that approximately 30-91% of patients with diabetes will experience at least one cutaneous manifestation of this systemic disease in their lifetime. To date, there are limited articles summarizing the link between necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum (NLD) prognosis and glycemic control in patients with diabetes. The objective of the study is to summarize and appraise the available evidence assessing the relationship between glycemic control and NLD. A literature search was conducted based on MEDLINE (1946-2015), EMBASE (1980-2015), Google Scholar, and PubMed for publications that described the results of diabetes control and NLD. Further studies were identified from bibliographies of all relevant studies, gray literature, and annual scientific assemblies. All studies investigating the relationship between DM (type 1 and type 2) management and NLD were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data including demographics, type of diabetes management measures (glucose, HbA1c, insulin), comorbidities, and outcome. A total of 622 studies were identified, and 10 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria: two case series and eight case reports. Of the 24 patients with NLD, 13 patients reported resolution of NLD after implementing various methods of glycemic control (diabetic diet consisting of 1600 kcal/day [1 patient], insulin regimen [3 patients], and pancreatic transplantation [9 patients]). Glycemic control may have a role in influencing the prognosis of necrobiosis lipoidica in patients with diabetes; however, there is currently insufficient evidence to support or refute this claim.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".