Peripheral Neuropathy and Cardiac Autonomic Neuropathy among Type II Diabetic Patients: Prevalence and Risk Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The two most common chronic complication softype 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are peripheral neuropathy (PN) and Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN).Diagnosing neuropathies at subclinical stage can prevent the morbidity and mortality.
 Objectives: To determine the prevalence of peripheral neuropathy and cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy and their risk factors in type-II diabetic patients attending a tertiary care hospital.
 Methods: An observational cross sectional study was done from December 2019 to November 2020 in the department of General medicine at tertiary care hospital. 273 type II diabetic patients were selected for this study. Toronto clinical scoring system was used for assessing PN and ewings cardiovascular reflex study was used done to assess CAN. To identify the risk factors of PN and CAN, Logistic regression analysis was used.
 Results: The prevalence of PN and CAN was 45.4% and 34.06% respectively, while29.3% participants had both. Smoking (OR: 12.976; 95% CI: 0.052–0.418, P<0.0001) and poor glycaemic control (OR: 27.231; 95% CI: 5.226–38.201, P<0.0001) were independent risk factors of DPN. poorglycaemic control (OR: 26.970; 95% CI: 3.507–16.055, P <0.0001) and Dyslipidimea (OR: 11.792; 95% CI: 0.096–0.526, P ≤ 0.001) were independent predictors of CAN.
 Interpretation and Conclusions: PN and CAN are common among diabetic patients, and thus it is recommended to screen Peripheral Neuropathy and CAN in all diabetic patients for the early diagnosis and preventing the debilitating complications
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".