Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 515

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Surrogate Markers of Small Fiber Damage in Human Diabetic Neuropathy

Quattrini, Cristian, Tavakoli, Mitra, Jeziorska, Maria, Kallinikos, Panagiotis, Tesfaye, Solomon, Finnigan, Joanne, Marshall, Andrew, Boulton, Andrew J.M., Efron, Nathan, Malik, Rayaz A.·2007·Diabetes

Abstract

Surrogate markers of diabetic neuropathy are being actively sought to facilitate the diagnosis, measure the progression, and assess the benefits of therapeutic intervention in patients with diabetic neuropathy. We have quantified small nerve fiber pathological changes using the technique of intraepidermal nerve fiber (IENF) assessment and the novel in vivo technique of corneal confocal microscopy (CCM). Fifty-four diabetic patients stratified for neuropathy, using neurological evaluation, neurophysiology, and quantitative sensory testing, and 15 control subjects were studied. They underwent a punch skin biopsy to quantify IENFs and CCM to quantify corneal nerve fibers. IENF density (IENFD), branch density, and branch length showed a progressive reduction with increasing severity of neuropathy, which was significant in patients with mild, moderate, and severe neuropathy. CCM also showed a progressive reduction in corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) and branch density, but the latter was significantly reduced even in diabetic patients without neuropathy. Both IENFD and CNFD correlated significantly with cold detection and heat as pain thresholds. Intraepidermal and corneal nerve fiber lengths were reduced in patients with painful compared with painless diabetic neuropathy. Both IENF and CCM assessment accurately quantify small nerve fiber damage in diabetic patients. However, CCM quantifies small fiber damage rapidly and noninvasively and detects earlier stages of nerve damage compared with IENF pathology. This may make it an ideal technique to accurately diagnose and assess progression of human diabetic neuropathy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/db07-0285

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 515

Metadata

Authors
Quattrini, C., Tavakoli, M., Jeziorska, M., Kallinikos, P., Tesfaye, S., Finnigan, J., Marshall, A., Boulton, A. J. M., Efron, N., & Malik, R. A.
Venue
Diabetes
Published
2007-08-01
Volume
56
Issue
8
Pages
2148-2154
ISSN
  • 0012-1797 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-327X
OpenAlex
W1492155478
Cited by
515
References
4
FWCI
11.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.