Electrophysiological grading scale for polyneuropathy severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish a simple electrophysiological scale for patients with distal symmetric axonal polyneuropathy, in order to promote standardized and informative electrodiagnostic reporting, and understand the complex relationship between electrophysiological and clinical polyneuropathy severity. METHODS: We included 76 patients with distal symmetric axonal polyneuropathy, from a cohort of 151 patients with polyneuropathy prospectively recruited from November 2016 to May 2017. Patients underwent nerve conduction studies (NCS), were evaluated by the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (TCNS), and additional tests. The number of abnormal NCS parameters was determined, within the range of 0-4, considering low amplitude or conduction velocity in the sural and peroneal nerve. RESULTS: Higher number of NCS abnormalities was associated with higher TCNS, indicating more severe polyneuropathy. Polyneuropathy severity per the TCNS was most frequently (63%-70%) mild in patients with a low (0-1) number of NCS abnormalities, and most frequently (57%-67%) severe in patients with a high number (3-4) of NCS abnormalities, while patients with an intermediate (2) number of NCS abnormalities showed mainly mild and moderate severity with equal distribution (40%). CONCLUSIONS: A simple NCS classification system can objectively grade polyneuropathy severity, although significant overlap exists especially at the intermediate range, underscoring the importance of clinical based scoring.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".