The impact of vitamin D supplementation on peripheral neuropathy in a sample of Egyptian prediabetic individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire:to assess the dimensions of pain including pain sensations such as throbbing, shooting, stabbing, sharp, cramping, gnawing, hot, burning, aching, heavy, tender, and splitting. Descriptors l-11 represents the sensory dimension of pain; which encompasses both the quality and severity of pain. It includes the patient's report of the location, quality, and intensity of pain. Assessing this dimension helps quantify the pain and clarify the extent of poorly localized or radiating pain and 12-15 represent the affective dimension which describes the unpleasantness, the pain feels like a single unpleasant bodily experience. Each descriptor was ranked on an intensity scale of 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe. Interpretation: The more the score the more pain Douleur Neuropathic 4 diagnostique questionnaire (DN4) : to assess symptoms reflecting pain as sensations of burning, painful cold, electric shocks, tingling, pins and needles, and brushing Interpretation: If the patients score is ≥ 4, the test indicates that the patient is likely to be suffering from neuropathic pain
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".