ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Development and validation of a risk prediction model for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To construct and validate a clinical model to predict painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients for early identification and intervention in primary care. Methods: A total of 1,984 patients with T2DM were included in the analysis. After data preprocessing and application of the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) with a 200% oversampling ratio, feature selection was performed using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression with 10-fold cross-validation. Six predictive models: multivariable logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), artificial neural network (ANN), and support vector machine (SVM)-were developed and tuned using repeated 5-fold cross-validation. Model performance was evaluated on the independent test cohort using comprehensive discrimination and calibration metrics. To enhance clinical interpretability, a nomogram and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis were implemented to visualize predictor contributions. Results: Ten variables were selected as predictors. Among 1,984 patients, 81 (4.08%) had PDPN. LR model demonstrated the most favorable trade-off for screening purposes, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.894 (95% CI: 0.814-0.964), area under the precision-recall curve (PR-AUC) of 0.470 (95% CI: 0.258-0.665), and balanced accuracy of 0.826 (95% CI: 0.667-0.932). SHAP analysis identified musculoskeletal disorders and HbA1c as the most influential predictors. A user-friendly dynamic web-based nomogram was constructed to support clinical implementation. Conclusion: We established and validated a clinically interpretable model for PDPN risk prediction in patients with T2DM. The dynamic nomogram enables individualized risk estimation and may assist timely intervention in routine practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.