ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Development of a machine learning-based classification model for diabetic foot in patients with type 2 diabetes: an exploratory analysis with SHAP interpretation.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic foot (DF) is one of the most severe complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), contributing to over 85% of diabetes-related lower limb amputations and a 5-year mortality rate comparable to certain cancers. Current diagnostic approaches face challenges including over-reliance on single-indicator screening, limited multimodal data integration, and lack of model interpretability. Methods: A dataset integrating five modalities-sociodemographic characteristics, physiological indicators, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) tongue features, plantar hardness metrics, and laboratory biomarkers-was prospectively collected from 391 patients (124 T2DM, 267 DF) at a single tertiary hospital between May 2019 and October 2022. The final model was constructed using 18 clinical features from sociodemographic, physiological, and laboratory modalities. Seven machine learning algorithms were developed and compared, and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were used for interpretability analysis. Results: LightGBM achieved optimal performance (accuracy: 88.61%, sensitivity: 87.76%, specificity: 90.00%, AUC: 0.9519). Key classification features included age, body mass index (BMI), creatinine (Cr), white blood cell count (WBC), and uric acid (UA). Discussion: These features reflect general systemic inflammation, metabolic burden, and renal function rather than DF-specific pathology. The study contributes (1) an open-source multimodal DF dataset bridging TCM and Western medicine, (2) a classification tool that distinguishes DF from uncomplicated T2DM with reasonable accuracy as a potential supplementary screening instrument pending external validation, and (3) novel mechanistic insights suggesting that systemic inflammatory markers may play an important role in DF pathophysiology.
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.