Augmented Corneal Nerve Fiber Branching in Painful Compared With Painless Diabetic Neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The factors that determine the development of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) as a painful or painless entity are unknown. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that corneal nerve pathology could be more pronounced in painful DSPN, indicating predominant small nerve fiber damage. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we assessed 53 patients with painful DSPN, 63 with painless DSPN, and 46 glucose-tolerant volunteers by corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), nerve conduction (NC), and quantitative sensory testing. DSPN was diagnosed according to modified Toronto Consensus criteria. A cutoff at 4 points on the 11-point rating scale was used to differentiate between painful and painless DSPN. RESULTS: After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking, corneal nerve fiber density, corneal nerve fiber length, and corneal nerve branch density (CNBD) were reduced in both DSPN types compared with the control group (P < 0.05). Only CNBD differed between the groups; it was greater in patients with painful DSPN compared with those with painless DSPN [55.8 (SD, 29.9) vs 43.8 (SD, 28.3) branches/mm2; P < 0.05]. Several CCM measures were associated with NC and cold perception threshold in patients with painless DSPN (P < 0.05) but not those with painful DSPN. CONCLUSION: Despite a similarly pronounced peripheral nerve dysfunction and corneal nerve fiber loss in patients with painful and painless DSPN, corneal nerve branching was enhanced in those with painful DSPN, pointing to some susceptibility of corneal nerve fibers toward regeneration in this entity, albeit possibly not to a sufficient degree.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".