MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142672804 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.4271

The Effects of Type 1 Diabetes and Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy on the Musculoskeletal System: A Case–Control Study

2020· article· en· W3142672804 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tatiane Vilaça, Margaret Paggiosi, Jennifer Walsh, Dinesh Selvarajah, Richard Eastell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsMedicinePeripheral neuropathyType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusDiabetic neuropathyPeripheralInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fracture risk is increased in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Diabetic neuropathy might contribute to this increased risk directly through effects on bone turnover and indirectly through effects on balance, muscle strength, and gait. We compared patients with T1D with (T1DN+, n = 20) and without (T1DN-, n = 20) distal symmetric sensorimotor polyneuropathy and controls (n = 20). We assessed areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and appendicular muscle mass by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, microarchitecture by high-resolution peripheral quantitative tomography at the standard ultra-distal site and at an exploratory 14% bone length site at the tibia and radius, bone turnover markers, and muscle strength, gait, and balance by Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). At the standard ultra-distal site, tibial cortical porosity was 56% higher in T1DN+ compared with T1DN- (p = .009) and correlated positively with the severity of neuropathy (Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score; r = 0.347, p = .028) and negatively with nerve conduction amplitude and velocity (r = -0.386, p = .015 and r = -0.358, p = .025, respectively). Similar negative correlations were also observed at the radius (r = -0.484, p = .006 and r = -0.446, p = .012, respectively). At the exploratory 14% offset site (less distal), we found higher trabecular volumetric BMD (tibia 25%, p = .024; radius 46%, p = .017), trabecular bone volume (tibia 25%, p = .023; radius 46%, p = .017), and trabecular number (tibia 22%, p = .014; radius 30%, p = .010) in T1DN- compared with controls. Both CTX and PINP were lower in participants with TD1 compared with controls. No difference was found in aBMD and appendicular muscle mass. T1DN+ had worse performance in the SPPB compared with T1DN- and control. In summary, neuropathy was associated with cortical porosity and worse performance in physical tests. Our findings suggest that bone structure does not fully explain the rate of fractures in T1D. We conclude that the increase in the risk of fractures in T1D is multifactorial with both skeletal and non-skeletal contributions. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207