Reliability of the Pedar in-shoe system for plantar pressure measurement in diabetic patients with and without neuropathy: a prospective study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it