Glycemic Variability and the Risk of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glycemic variability (GV) has been related to complications in patients with diabetes. The aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate whether GV is also associated with the incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). A systematic search of Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library database was conducted to identify relevant observational studies with longitudinal follow-up. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for study quality evaluation. A random-effects model was utilized to pool the results, accounting for heterogeneity. Ten observational studies including 72 565 patients with diabetes were included. The quality score was 8-9, indicating generally good quality of the included studies. With a mean follow-up duration of 7.1 years, 11 532 patients (15.9%) were diagnosed as DPN. Compared to patients with low GV, patients with high GV were associated with an increased risk incidence of DPN (risk ratio: 1.51, 95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 1.85, p<0.001; I2=78%). In addition, subgroup analysis showed consistent results in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and in studies evaluating the short-term and long-term GV (p for subgroup difference=0.82 and 0.53). Finally, results of subgroup analysis also suggested that the association between GV and risk of DPN were not significantly affected by study design, follow-up durations, diagnostic methods for DPN, adjustment of mean glycated hemoglobin A1c, or study quality scores (p for subgroup difference all>0.05). A high GV may be associated with an increased incidence of DPN.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".