ArticleDigital health
Combining thermography and artificial intelligence in comparison with a diabetic foot nurse for diabetic foot ulcer detection: A diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Digital health. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early detection of diabetic foot complications is essential to prevent ulcers and amputations. Thermographic imaging offers a non-invasive method for identifying risk, but clinical interpretation has traditionally relied on human thermographers. Artificial intelligence (AI) may offer a more scalable and objective alternative. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of an AI-powered thermographic screening tool in identifying risk for diabetic foot complications, compared to nurse-led clinical assessment. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 100 adults with diabetes undergoing routine foot screening. For each participant, a smartphone-based thermal imaging device was first used to capture plantar images, from which the AI model generated risk scores (0-3). Second, a diabetic foot nurse performed a clinical examination and assigned the reference risk scores (0-3). Absolute temperature differences were computed from thermal images, and diagnostic accuracy metrics were calculated using the nurse assessment as the reference standard. Results: The AI system demonstrated 100% sensitivity, 96.8% specificity, 66.7% positive predictive value, and 100% negative predictive value for detecting moderate-to-high risk cases. There was a strong correlation between AI and nurse scores (ρ = 0.973), and both assessors showed increasing temperature asymmetry with higher risk levels. Conclusions: The AI model accurately detected all moderate-to-high risk cases flagged by the nurse, with high sensitivity and specificity. Its strong alignment with thermal data and consistent scoring suggest its value as a scalable and reproducible adjunct for diabetic foot screening. Further validation in longitudinal settings may support broader integration in remote and primary care environments.
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.