Observational studyJournal of neurology2026
Clinical heterogeneity in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: data-driven subtypes challenge current classification.
Observational study in Journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) presents with substantial phenotypic heterogeneity, yet current classifications do not adequately capture clinically meaningful subgroups. Thus, we aimed to discover novel, clinically meaningful CIDP subgroups using unbiased clustering.
methodsIn this observational, multicenter retrospective cohort study we screened 425 patients diagnosed with typical CIDP or CIDP variants from 10 German centers. Standardized data including demographic, clinical, electrophysiological, laboratory, comorbidity, and treatment information were collected. 325 patients were then randomly assigned to the discovery cohort and 100 to the validation cohort. We performed unbiased clustering and post-hoc analysis to identify clusters and define subtypes.
findingsFour distinct clusters showed marked differences: Cluster 1: Female patients with high symptom level, high disability scores, ANA positivity and autoimmune comorbidities Cluster 2: Moderate to low symptom level with low disability scores, demyelination-dominant and less comorbidities Cluster 3: High symptom level, axonal-demyelinating damage and cardiovascular comorbidities Cluster 4: Multifocal CIDP with high disability scores as well as frequent ataxia and areflexia Post hoc analyses showed marked differences in disease progression and therapeutic strategies, with clusters 1 and 4 showing particularly high rates of progression and disability.
interpretationUnbiased clustering revealed four clinically meaningful CIDP subtypes, each exhibiting distinct presentations and trajectories. We identified two red flag subgroups suggesting that CIDP comprises biologically and clinically heterogeneous disease phenotypes. These findings may support more individualized monitoring and therapeutic strategies for high-risk patients and raise the possibility of distinct underlying pathomechanisms across CIDP subgroups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42918938What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.