Reliability of the Pedar in-shoe system for plantar pressure measurement in diabetic patients with and without neuropathy: a prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate within and between days’ reliability of the Pedar in-shoe system (Novel GmbH, Munich, Germany) to measure plantar pressure in diabetic patients with and without neuropathy. Methods: Forty-seven diabetic patients were divided into diabetic without neuropathy, and with mild, moderate, and severe neuropathy groups based on Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score. Plantar pressure measurement was taken twice a day to assess within the same day’s reliability and after a mean of 7 days to evaluate between different days’ reliability. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) analysis indicated excellent reliability (ICC ≥0.75) in tests within the same day in all groups. Mean pressure and pressure time integral showed excellent levels of ICC reliability in the tests between different days’ in the diabetic group without neuropathy and with mild neuropathy (ICC ≥0.75) and fair-to-excellent in the diabetic group with moderate and severe neuropathy (ICC ≥0.40). Reliability of contact area between different days were excellent in all groups (ICC ≥0.75). Conclusions: The results indicated that the Pedar in-shoe system was a reliable measure of plantar pressure within the same day and between different days in diabetic patients with and without neuropathy. The level of reliability was altered with a change of the neuropathy severity. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".