Study on Risk Factors of Peripheral Neuropathy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Establishment of Prediction Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most serious complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DPN increases the risk of ulcers, foot infections, and noninvasive amputations, ultimately leading to long-term disability. METHODS: Seven hundred patients with T2DM were investigated from 2013 to 2017 in the Sanlin community by obtaining basic data from the electronic medical record system (EMRS). From September 2018 to July 2019, 681 patients (19 missing) were investigated using a questionnaire, physical examination, biochemical index test, and follow-up Toronto clinical scoring system (TCSS) test. Patients with a TCSS score ≥6 points were diagnosed with DPN. After removing missing values, 612 patients were divided into groups in a 3:1 ratio for external validation. Using different Lasso analyses (misclassification error, mean squared error, -2log-likelihood, and area under curve) and a logistic regression analysis of the training set, models A, B, C, and D were established. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration plot, dynamic component analysis (DCA) measurements, net classification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were used to validate discrimination and clinical practicality of the model. RESULTS: Through data analysis, model A (containing four factors), model B (containing five factors), model C (containing seven factors), and model D (containing seven factors) were built. After calibration, ROC curve, DCA, NRI and IDI, models C and D exhibited better accuracy and greater predictive power. CONCLUSION: Four prediction models were established to assist with the early screening of DPN in patients with T2DM. The influencing factors in model C and D are more important factors for patients with T2DM diagnosed with DPN.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".