489-P: Abnormal Combined Point-of-Care-Device DPN-Check and SUDOSCAN Results Predict All-Cause Mortality in People with Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) has been associated with increased mortality; however, data is not available for objectively diagnosed DPN using point-of-care-devices (POCDs). We therefore examined the predictive validity of POCD-diagnosed DPN for increased mortality in a prospective study. Methods: A total of 245 consecutive people with diabetes (17 type 1 diabetes, age 62.3+14.3) attending retinal-screening had all annual review health checks in a One-stop Screening Service. DPN assessments included Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (TCNS) evaluation, 10g-monofilament test(10g-MFT) and two validated, objective POCDs, DPN-Check (handheld device measuring sural nerve conduction velocity/amplitude), and SUDOSCAN (measuring sudomotor function). Mortality data was collected at 7-year follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox-proportional hazards models were generated to assess associations of DPN measures with all-cause mortality. Results: At follow-up, 52 [21.2% (SE 6.8%)] had died. Those who died were older at screening [72.4 (10.9) vs 59.6 (13.9) years; (p<0.001)]. The prevalence of screen-detected DPN was 12.6% (SE 4.4%) for 10g-MFT, 27.7% (SE 8.2%) for TCNS and 33.4% (SE 9.1%) for combined POCDs. In crude Kaplan-Meier analyses all-cause mortality risk was greater in patients with abnormal TCNS (p<0.001) and POCDs (p<0.001) but was equivalent in patients with normal or abnormal 10g-MFT (p=0.21). After adjusting for age, HbA1c and Total Cholesterol, only abnormal POCDs was significantly associated with all-cause mortality [HR 1.18 (p=0.04, 95%CI 1.00:1.39) vs TCNS [HR 1.33 (p=0.06, 95%CI 0.99:1.78)]. Conclusions: This is the first prospective study showing abnormal combined DPN-Check and SUDOSCAN results predict all-cause mortality after adjusting for other risk factors. However, 10g-MFT and TCNS that diagnose DPN late did not predict all-cause mortality. Disclosure M.Goonoo: None. D.Selvarajah: None. G.P.Sloan: None. S.Tesfaye: Advisory Panel; Bayer Inc., Wörwag Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Angelini, Speaker's Bureau; Viatris Inc., Nevro Corp., Procter & Gamble, Novo Nordisk, Berlin-Chemie AG.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".