MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211591349 · doi:10.1212/nxi.0000000000001111

Analysis of Macrophages and Peptidergic Fibers in the Skin of Patients With Painful Diabetic Polyneuropathy

2021· article· en· W3211591349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovo Nordisk FondenLundbeckfondenSteno Diabetes Center AarhusIpsenAlnylam Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsPathogenesisInnate immune systemImmune systemDiabetic neuropathyNeuropathic painMacrophageDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The mechanisms of pain in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy are unknown. Studies have suggested a role of inflammation and increased neuropeptides peripherally in pain generation. This study examined the possible skin markers of painful diabetic polyneuropathy (P-DPN): macrophages, substance P (SP), and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). METHODS: The participants were included from a large Danish cross-sectional clinical study of type 2 diabetes. We diagnosed definite diabetic polyneuropathy using the Toronto criteria and used the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group classification for defining P-DPN. We included 60 skin biopsies from patients with diabetic polyneuropathy-30 with P-DPN and 30 with nonpainful diabetic polyneuropathy (NP-DPN)-and 30 biopsies from healthy controls of similar age and sex. The biopsies were stained using PGP 9.5, IbA1, and SP and CGRP primary markers. RESULTS: = 0.64 and 0.49, respectively). The difference between P-DPN and NP-DPN for SP and CGRP was significant only in female patients, although a trend was seen in male patients. DISCUSSION: The findings point to a possible involvement of the innate immune system in the pathogenesis of neuropathic pain in patients with DPN, although markers of activated macrophages were not measured in this study.

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)0.000
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations42
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology Neuroimmunology & NeuroinflammationSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207