Cardiac Autonomic Neuropathy: Why Should Cardiologists Care about That?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) is a frequent but underdiagnosed complication of diabetes mellitus. It has a strong influence on various cardiac disorders including myocardial ischemia and infarction, hypertension, orthostatic hypotonia, heart failure, and arrhythmias. CAN can lead to severe morbidity and mortality and increase the risk of sudden cardiac death. METHODS: This review article summarizes the latest evidence regarding the epidemiology, pathogenesis, influence on the cardiovascular system, and diagnostic methods for CAN. The methodology of this review involved analyzing available data from recent papers relevant to the topic of diabetic autonomic neuropathy and cardiac disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The early diagnosis of CAN can improve the prognosis and reduce adverse cardiac events. Methods based on heart rate variability enable the diagnosis of CAN even at a preclinical stage. These methods are simple and widely available for use in everyday clinical practice. According to the recently published Toronto Consensus Panel on Diabetic Neuropathy, all diabetic patients should be screened for CAN. Because diabetes mellitus often coexists with heart diseases and the most common methods used for diagnosis of CAN are based on ECG, not only diabetologists but also cardiologists should be responsible for diagnosis of CAN.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 it