Does Diabetes Alter CSF Total Protein Levels? A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Elevation of total protein level in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF-TP) in diabetic patients is often disregarded by clinicians. However, existing studies on the topic have significant limitations, and therefore we aimed to explore the relationship between diabetes and CSF-TP in a large database of CSF samples. Methods: Retrospective review of all diagnostic lumbar punctures at the Ottawa Hospital between 1996-2016. Patients were excluded if they had elevated CSF cell counts, or a condition known to elevate CSF-TP. Multivariate linear regression modeling considered the effects of age, sex, and diabetes. Results: Among 6124 patients (746 with diabetes, 5378 without), mean CSF-TP did not differ significantly between groups (0.39 and 0.35 mmol/L, p = 0.2). When controlled for age and sex, there was no significant effect of diabetes on CSF-TP and no significant correlation between mean serum glucose and CSF-TP (R 2 = 0.12). Conclusions: CSF-TP did not differ significantly between diabetic and non-diabetic groups, once the influence of age and sex was controlled. Elevated CSF-TP should be regarded as pathologic, even in the setting of diabetes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".