An Open‐Label Comparative Study of the Impact of Two Types of Electrical Stimulation (Direct Current Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation and Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation) on Physical Therapy Treatment of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of treatments with two different electrical stimulation (e‐stim) devices—pulsed direct current (DC) (Neubie) and alternating current (AC) (transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS))—in the treatment of symptoms for patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Design: Randomized controlled trial (RCT) with parallel groups. Methods: One hundred fifty participants were recruited from 13 Hands‐On Diagnostics–affiliated sites across several US locations. Participants were randomly divided into two groups for comparison—Neubie and TENS. Participants received a 30‐min foot stimulation protocol with either TENS unit electrodes or Neubie electrodes. Outcome measures included the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (TCNS), two‐point discrimination, visual analogue scale (VAS), vibration sense (VBS), nerve conduction velocity (NCV), and nerve amplitude. The effect of the two variables on all outcome measures was determined using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Results: The Neubie group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in TCNS for both right and left sides ( p < 0.001), two‐point discrimination of the dominant foot ( p = 0.001), VBS ( p = 0.022) and VAS scores ( p = 0.009), and some but not all nerves tested by NCV ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: Overall, DPN treatment with the Neubie resulted in significant improvements in several major outcome measures, whereas TENS showed no significant difference in any outcome measure. These findings support the use of DC devices as a potentially superior therapeutic treatment for neuropathy over AC devices like the TENS unit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05442021
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".