ArticleDiabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy2026
Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning Model for Predicting Wound Infection in Diabetic Foot Ulcers.
Article in Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Based Models for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment: Scoping Review.JMIR diabetes · 2026Review
- Microbial dysbiosis and wound healing in diabetic foot ulcers: a mini review with a note on the role of artificial intelligence.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Wound infection is a major determinant of poor prognosis in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). This study aimed to develop, compare, and externally validate multiple machine learning (ML) models for predicting wound infection in DFUs using routinely collected clinical indicators. Methods: A total of 800 patients with DFUs were retrospectively enrolled. The primary cohort (n=500) was randomly divided into training (70%, n=350) and internal testing (30%, n=150) sets, while an independent cohort (n=300) was used for external validation. Eight ML algorithms were constructed and compared, including logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, support vector machine, k-nearest neighbor, naive Bayes, extreme gradient boosting, and light gradient boosting machine. Model performance was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and other metrics in internal cross-validation and external validation. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were applied for feature interpretability. Results: The RF model demonstrated the best performance, with an AUC of 0.937 (95% CI 0.906 to 0.969) in training, 0.853 (95% CI 0.804 to 0.901) in internal testing, and 0.832 (95% CI 0.779 to 0.885) in external validation. Six key variables (age, duration of diabetes, ankle brachial index, ulcer area, vascular complications, and osteomyelitis) were identified as the most influential predictors. SHAP analysis provided interpretable insights into their contributions to infection risk. Conclusion: The RF model showed robust predictive performance and generalizability for wound infection in DFUs. Its integration into clinical practice could enable early risk stratification and personalized interventions, potentially reducing amputations and improving outcomes. Future prospective studies are needed for further validation.
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.