Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Practical Guidance and Challenges for Clinical Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frank G Preston,1 David R Riley,1 Shazli Azmi,2 Uazman Alam1,3 1Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Medicine, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences and the Pain Research Institute, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; 2Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University of Manchester and Manchester Diabetes Centre, Manchester Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 3Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool and Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UKCorrespondence: Uazman Alam, Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Medicine, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, Clinical Sciences Centre, University Hospital Aintree, Longmoor Lane, Liverpool, L9 7AL, UK, Tel +44 0151 529 5918, Fax +44 0151 529 5888, Email ualam@liverpool.ac.ukAbstract: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is present in nearly a quarter of people with diabetes. It is estimated to affect over 100 million people worldwide. PDPN is associated with impaired daily functioning, depression, sleep disturbance, financial instability, and a decreased quality of life. Despite its high prevalence and significant health burden, it remains an underdiagnosed and undertreated condition. PDPN is a complex pain phenomenon with the experience of pain associated with and exacerbated by poor sleep and low mood. A holistic approach to patient-centred care alongside the pharmacological therapy is required to maximise benefit. A key treatment challenge is managing patient expectation, as a good outcome from treatment is defined as a reduction in pain of 30– 50%, with a complete pain-free outcome being rare. The future for the treatment of PDPN holds promise, despite a 20-year void in the licensing of new analgesic agents for neuropathic pain. There are over 50 new molecular entities reaching clinical development and several demonstrating benefit in early-stage clinical trials. We review the current approaches to its diagnosis, the tools, and questionnaires available to clinicians, international guidance on PDPN management, and existing pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options. We synthesise evidence and the guidance from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, American Academy of Neurology, American Diabetes Association, Diabetes Canada, German Diabetes Association, and the International Diabetes Federation into a practical guide to the treatment of PDPN and highlight the need for future research into mechanistic-based treatments in order to prioritise the development of personalised medicine.Keywords: diabetic peripheral neuropathy, painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, diabetes complications, pharmacotherapy
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
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".