ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Evaluation of Machine Learning Model Performance in Diabetic Foot Ulcer: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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.
- Predicting the diabetic foot in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus based on machine learning.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning (ML) has shown great potential in recognizing complex disease patterns and supporting clinical decision-making. Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) represent a significant multifactorial medical problem with high incidence and severe outcomes, providing an ideal example for a comprehensive framework that encompasses all essential steps for implementing ML in a clinically relevant fashion.
objectiveThis paper aims to provide a framework for the proper use of ML algorithms to predict clinical outcomes of multifactorial diseases and their treatments.
methodsThe comparison of ML models was performed on a DFU dataset. The selection of patient characteristics associated with wound healing was based on outcomes of statistical tests, that is, ANOVA and chi-square test, and validated on expert recommendations. Imputation and balancing of patient records were performed with MIDAS (Multiple Imputation with Denoising Autoencoders) Touch and adaptive synthetic sampling, respectively. Logistic regression, support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors, random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), Bayesian additive regression trees, and artificial neural network were trained, cross-validated, and optimized using random sampling on the patient dataset. To evaluate model calibration and clinical utility, calibration curves, Brier scores, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were performed.
resultsThe exploratory dataset consisted of 700 patient records with 199 variables. After dataset cleaning, the variables used for model training included age, smoking status, toe systolic pressure, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, hemoglobin, hemoglobin A
conclusionsHandling missing values, feature selection, and addressing class imbalance are critical components of the key steps in developing ML applications for clinical research. Seven models were selected for comparing their predictive power regarding complete wound healing, and each model representing a different branch in ML. In this initial DFU dataset used as an example, the SVM achieved the best performance in predicting clinical outcomes, followed by RF and XGBoost. The model's calibration and clinical utility were determined through calibration curves, Brier scores, and DCA, demonstrating its potential relevance in clinical decision-making.
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.