Dietary phytochemical index and its relationship with diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy: a case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phytochemicals are compounds found in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and legumes that are non-nutritive but have bioactive properties. A high intake of these compounds is essential for optimal health and disease prevention. No study has investigated the association between Dietary Phytochemical Index (DPI) and polyneuropathy in patients with diabetes. This study aimed to examine the association between DPI and Diabetic Sensory-motor Polyneuropathy (DSPN) in a case-control study. In this case-control study, a total of 185 diabetic patients with DSPN (case group) and 185 sex- and age-matched diabetic patients without neuropathy (control group) were enrolled in this study. Participants were 30–60 years old. A validated food frequency questionnaire was used to measure the dietary intake of all participants. Daily energy derived from phytochemical-rich foods was used to calculate the DPI score. Toronto clinical neuropathy score was applied to define DSPN. Anthropometric data and fasting blood glucose levels were measured using standard methods. The Binary logistic regression was used to estimate Crude and multivariable-adjusted OR (95% CI) for DSPN across tertiles of DPI for the whole population. In the crude model, there was a significant trend across the tertile of DPI (OR highest vs. lowest tertile of DPI = 0.33; 95%CI 0.18, 0.52; P -trend < 0.001). After controlling for age, sex, and energy, a significant reverse association was observed between DPI and DSPN (OR highest vs. lowest tertile of DPI = 0.27; 95%CI 0.15, 0·48; P -trend < 0.001). Moreover, after adjusting for a wide range of confounding variables such as energy intake, physical activity, education, smoking status, and HbA1c, participants in the third tertile of DPI had 75% reduced odds for DSPN (95%CI 0.14, 0.45; P -trend < 0.001). Finally in the full adjusted model, after further adjustment for BMI, observed significant association was remained (OR highest vs. lowest tertile of DPI : 0.24; 95% CI 0.13, 0.14; P -trend < 0.001). Higher intakes of phytochemical-rich foods are associated with lower odds of DSPN.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".