MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177015039 · doi:10.2337/dc21-0476

Corneal Confocal Microscopy Predicts the Development of Diabetic Neuropathy: A Longitudinal Diagnostic Multinational Consortium Study

2021· article· en· W3177015039 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce A. Perkins, Leif E. Lovblom, Evan J.H. Lewis, Vera Bril, Maryam Ferdousi, Andrej Orszag, Katie Edwards, Nicola Pritchard, Cirous Dehghani, Danièle Pacaud, Kenneth Romanchuk, Jean K. Mah, Maria Jeziorska, Andrew Marshall, Roni M. Shtein, Rodica Pop‐Busui, Stephen I. Lentz, Mitra Tavakoli, Andrew J.M. Boulton, Nathan Efron, Rayaz A. Malik

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of CalgaryLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeType 1 diabetesConfocal microscopyDiabetes mellitusReceiver operating characteristicOphthalmologyType 2 diabetesHazard ratioConfocalCohortInternal medicineEndocrinologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE Corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) has been shown in research studies to identify diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). In this longitudinal diagnostic study, we assessed the ability of CNFL to predict the development of DPN. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS From a multinational cohort of 998 participants with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, we studied the subset of 261 participants who were free of DPN at baseline and completed at least 4 years of follow-up for incident DPN. The predictive validity of CNFL for the development of DPN was determined using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS A total of 203 participants had type 1 and 58 had type 2 diabetes. Mean follow-up time was 5.8 years (interquartile range 4.2–7.0). New-onset DPN occurred in 60 participants (23%; 4.29 events per 100 person-years). Participants who developed DPN were older and had a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes, higher BMI, and longer duration of diabetes. The baseline electrophysiology and corneal confocal microscopy parameters were in the normal range but were all significantly lower in participants who developed DPN. The time-dependent area under the ROC curve for CNFL ranged between 0.61 and 0.69 for years 1–5 and was 0.80 at year 6. The optimal diagnostic threshold for a baseline CNFL of 14.1 mm/mm2 was associated with 67% sensitivity, 71% specificity, and a hazard ratio of 2.95 (95% CI 1.70–5.11; P < 0.001) for new-onset DPN. CONCLUSIONS CNFL showed good predictive validity for identifying patients at higher risk of developing DPN ∼6 years in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations55
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207