Age and Disease Duration Independent Cardiac Autonomic Neuropathy in Patients with Diabetic Foot Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) in people with diabetes is associated with high mortality. We aimed to study age and disease duration, independent prevalence of CAN in people with diabetic foot complications. Methods: 530 patients with diabetes were screened to undergo CAN assessment (automated CANS-analyser). CAN was defined as "early", "definite," or "severe" according to the Toronto consensus. History pertaining to autonomic symptoms, prior cardiovascular events (CVE), and assessment for peripheral neuropathy was done. Participants were grouped into those with diabetic foot complication (group A, n = 82) [Charcot foot (n = 42), diabetic foot ulcer (n = 40)]; with DPN without foot complications (group B, n = 82); and without DPN or foot complications (group C, n = 82). Results: Symptoms of autonomic dysfunction were prominent in people with foot complications than the other groups. Resting heart rate was significantly greater in those with foot complications [99.89 ± 26.71 (group A) vs. 86.99 ± 22.24 (group B) vs. 88.32 ± 17.08 (group C); P = 0.001]. The prevalence of CAN was 75.6% in group A (51.2% early, 12.2% definite, 12.2% severe), 57.2% in group B (45.1% early, 12.2% severe) and 58.5% in group C (43.9% early, 1.2% definite, 13.4% severe) (P = 0.002). Patients with foot complications were more likely to have CAN (75.6% vs. 57.9%, P < 0.001). Charcot foot had higher prevalence of CAN (78.6%) as compared with those with DFU (72.5%) or without DFU or DPN (57.9%), P < 0.001. Conclusion: CAN is present in more than two-third of patients with diabetes and foot complications with highest prevalence in Charcot neuroarthropathy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".