MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399688131 · doi:10.2337/db24-11-or

11-OR: Combined DPNCheck and SUDOSCAN as a Screening Tool for DPN—The Sheffield Prospective Study

2024· article· en· W4399688131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohummad Shaan Goonoo, Dinesh Selvarajah, GORDON P. SLOAN, Solomon Tesfaye

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeripheral neuropathyProspective cohort studyDiabetes mellitusAbnormalityInternal medicineNerve conduction velocityOdds ratioEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction & Objective: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is often diagnosed late. Point-of-care-devices (POCDs, ‘DPN-Check’ a handheld device which measures sural-nerve conduction-velocity/amplitude and SUDOSCAN a test of sudomotor-function) are objective, quick tests that when combined; accurately diagnose DPN. However, the ability of POCDs to predict incident DPN is unknown, and was examined in this prospective study. Methods: 229 consecutive participants with diabetes who attended one-stop microvascular screening service were re-called for follow-up evaluation at 7 years. Baseline assessments were repeated including: clinical and neurophysiological assessments of DPN [Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (TCNS),10g monofilament (10g-MFT), POCDs and nerve conduction studies (NCS). Risk of developing incident DPN was assessed using the odds-ratio for the diagnosis of DPN using clinical (TCNS, 10gMFT) and NCS. Results: 90 participants have completed follow up visits. Patients attending follow up were significantly younger [57.8(11.9)vs62.5(14.2)years; (p<0.001(95%CI 4.1:11.4)] than those who did not (n=139), and had lower number of co-morbidities [3.0vs5.5; P<0.001] and Q-risk (20.3(13.1)vs29.3(13.5); p<0.001). Thirty-four (37.8%) patients had incident 10g MFT abnormality at follow-up. Patients with abnormal POCDs had a OR 7.1(p<0.001;95%CI:2.3:22.8) times greater risk of 10g-MFT abnormality compared to those with normal POCDs at baseline. Similar increased risk of incident DPN were found when DPN was diagnosed using TCNS [OR 4.0(95%CI1.0:15.2, p=0.03)] and NCS [OR 11.9(95%CI:1.5:96.0, p=0.005)]. Conclusions: We have demonstrated significantly increased risk of incident clinical DPN in patients with abnormal baseline POCDs (microalbuminuria equivalent). These findings support the use of POCDs as a screening tool for early DPN diagnosis, when cardio-metabolic control may halt the progressive neuropathic process. Disclosure M. Goonoo: None. D. Selvarajah: Research Support; Abbott. Speaker's Bureau; Grunenthal. Research Support; Impeto medical. G.P. Sloan: Other Relationship; Procter & Gamble, Lilly Diabetes. S. Tesfaye: Advisory Panel; Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer Inc., Worwag Pharma, Nevro Corp. Other Relationship; GlaxoSmithKline plc, Novo Nordisk Foundation. Speaker's Bureau; Procter & Gamble, Viatris Inc. Research Support; Withings, Viatris Inc., Procter & Gamble. Funding Proctor & Gamble Health (STH SPONSOR ID STH22196)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207