Eleven neurology-related proteins measured in serum are positively correlated to the severity of diabetic neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
About 20% of patients with diabetes suffer from chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics. We investigated the multivariate associations between 92 neurology-related proteins measured in serum from 190 patients with painful and painless diabetic neuropathy. Participants were recruited from the Pain in Neuropathy Study, an observational cross-sectional multicentre study in which participants underwent deep phenotyping. In the exploration cohort, two groups were defined by hierarchical cluster analyses of protein data. The proportion of painless vs painful neuropathy did not differ between the two groups, but one group had a significantly higher grade of neuropathy as measured by the Toronto Clinical Scoring System (TCSS). This finding was replicated in the replication cohort. Analyzing both groups together, we found that a group of 11 inter-correlated proteins (TNFRSF12A, SCARB2, N2DL-2, SKR3, EFNA4, LAYN, CLM-1, CD38, UNC5C, GFR-alpha-1, and JAM-B) were positively associated with TCSS values. Notably, EFNA4 and UNC5C are known to be part of axon guidance pathways. To conclude, although cluster analysis of 92 neurology-related proteins did not distinguish painful from painless diabetic neuropathy, we identified 11 proteins which positively correlated to neuropathy severity and warrant further investigation as potential biomarkers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".