One‐stop microvascular screening service: an effective model for the early detection of diabetic peripheral neuropathy and the high‐risk foot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the feasibility of a one-stop microvascular screening service for the early diagnosis of diabetic distal symmetrical polyneuropathy, painful distal symmetrical polyneuropathy and the at-risk diabetic foot. METHODS: People with diabetes attending retinal screening in hospital and community settings had their feet examined by a podiatrist. Assessment included: Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score evaluation; a 10-g monofilament test; and two validated, objective and quick measures of neuropathy obtained using the point-of-care devices 'DPN-Check', a hand-held device that measures sural nerve conduction velocity and amplitude, and 'Sudoscan', a device that measures sudomotor function. The diagnostic utility of these devices was assessed against the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score as the 'gold standard'. RESULTS: A total of 236 consecutive people attending the retinal screening service, 18.9% of whom had never previously had their feet examined, were evaluated. The prevalence of distal symmetrical polyneuropathy, assessed using the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score, was 30.9%, and was underestimated by 10-g monofilament test (14.4%). The prevalence of distal symmetrical polyneuropathy using DPN-check was 51.5% (84.3% sensitivity, 68.3% specificity), 38.2% using Sudoscan foot electrochemical skin conductance (77.4% sensitivity, 68.3% specificity), and 61.9% using abnormality in either of the results (93.2% sensitivity, 52.8% specificity). The results of both devices correlated with Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (P<0.001). A new diagnosis of painful distal symmetrical polyneuropathy was made in 59 participants (25%), and 56.6% had moderate- or high-risk foot. Participants rated the service very highly. CONCLUSIONS: Combined, eye, foot and renal screening is feasible, has a high uptake, reduces clinic visits, and identifies painful distal symmetrical polyneuropathy and the at-risk foot. Combined large- and small-nerve-fibre assessment using non-invasive, quantitative and quick point-of-care devices may be an effective model for the early diagnosis of distal symmetrical polyneuropathy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".