MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411294647 · doi:10.2337/db25-154-or

154-OR: Combined Point-of-Care Devices, DPN-Check and Sudoscan, Diagnose Early DPN and Predict Diabetic Foot Ulceration

2025· article· en· W4411294647 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohummad Shaan Goonoo, Dinesh Selvarajah, GORDON P. SLOAN, Solomon Tesfaye

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetic footFoot (prosody)Internal medicineDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction and Objective: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is the strongest risk factor for diabetic foot ulceration (DFU). Current screening methods (e.g. 10g monofilament [10g-MFT]) are crude and diagnose DPN late when the condition is already well established. Point-of-care devices (POCDs), DPN-Check, a hand-held device that measures nerve conduction/amplitude and SUDOSCAN that measures sudomotor function, diagnose DPN early. However, their abilities to predict incident DFU is unknown. Methods: 229 consecutive participants with diabetes were followed up for 9 years and underwent detailed assessments including: the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (TCNS), 10g-MFT, and POCD. Risk of incident DFU was analysed using odds-ratios for participants with abnormal baseline TCNS, 10gMFT and combined POCDs tests who developed DFU at follow-up. Results: At baseline, the prevalence of DPN diagnosed was 14.4%, 27% and 66.8% for MFT(n=33), TCNS(n=62) and POCD(n=153) respectively. 100 participants attended the 9 year follow-up however 59 participants died. Those who attended follow up visits were significantly younger [58.0(11.1)vs59.1(17.8) years;(p<0.001(95%CI:4.1:11.4)], had fewer co-morbidities [2.7vs3.2; P<0.001] and lower Q-risk score (21.4(12.9)vs24.5(14.4); p<0.001). Thirty-five (15.3%) participants developed DFU. Participants with abnormal POCDs at baseline demonstrated a 4.4-fold increased risk [(n=31),95%CI:1.5:12.9, p<0.004)] of developing DFU compared to those with normal POCDs at baseline. There was also an increased risk of incident DFU with DPN diagnosed using TCNS [(n=17), OR 2.9(95%CI:1.4:6.1, p=0.004)] and 10g-MFT [(n=13), OR 4.5(95%CI:1.9:10.4, p<0.001)]. Conclusion: We have demonstrated that abnormal POCD tests predict greater number of incident DFUs. These results advocate the use of POCDs to predict DFUs at an early stage, when preventative measures can be implemented. Disclosure M. Goonoo: None. D. Selvarajah: None. G.P. Sloan: Speaker's Bureau; Eli Lilly and Company, Procter & Gamble. S. Tesfaye: Advisory Panel; AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Berlin-Chemie AG. Advisory Panel; Grünenthal. Speaker's Bureau; Metronics, Novo Nordisk. Advisory Panel; Procter & Gamble. Speaker's Bureau; Viatris Inc. Advisory Panel; Nevro Corp. Funding Proctor and Gamble (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)0.002
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207