Temporal Dispersion and Duration of the Distal Compound Muscle Action Potential Do Not Distinguish Diabetic Sensorimotor Polyneuropathy From Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the contribution of duration and temporal dispersion (TD) of the distal compound muscle action potential (CMAP) in discriminating chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) from diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP) and from CIDP+DSP. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with CIDP, DSP and CIDP+DSP (responsive to immunotherapy) and examined differences in CMAP duration and TD at baseline. Results: We included 59 subjects: 17 CIDP, 21 DSP and 21 CIDP+DSP. Of these, 16 (94.1%) CIDP, 18 (85.7%) CIDP+DSP and 1 (4.7%) DSP fulfilled the 2010 EFNS/PNS criteria for definite CIDP. There was no difference in CMAP duration or TD in all nerves (compound outcome) or in individual motor nerves. Patients with CIDP/CIDP+DSP had more conduction blocks, slower conduction velocities and more prolonged F wave latencies than those with DSP. Conclusion: Measures of CMAP duration and TD were not helpful in distinguishing CIDP, DSP or CIDP+DSP patients; however, parameters such as F-wave latencies, conduction blocks or the number of demyelinating parameters were useful in this separation. Significance: There are no definite nerve conduction criteria to distinguish patients with CIDP+DSP from DSP alone. Further studies focusing on measures of demyelination may provide stronger evidence to guide treatment decisions in CIDP + DSP patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".