ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Machine Learning-Based Diabetic Neuropathy and Previous Foot Ulceration Patients Detection Using Electromyography and Ground Reaction Forces during Gait.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of machine learning approaches to identify psoriatic arthritis: a meta-analysis.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Advances in the application of artificial intelligence-driven multi-modal imaging technologies in the comprehensive diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2026Review
- Clinical Translation of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Gait Analysis Using Plantar Pressure and Ground Reaction Force.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Innovative strategies for diabetic peripheral neuropathy: From clinical management to emerging bioengineering solutions.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Advances in Image-Based Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Ulcers Using Deep Learning and Machine Learning: A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Care: Advances in Diagnosis, Treatment, Prognosis, and Novel Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Review
- Insights into motor impairment assessment using myographic signals with artificial intelligence: a scoping review.Biomedical engineering letters · 2025Review
- Wearable system for the measurement of gait cycle kinematic and kinetic signals.Wearable technologies · 2025Article
- Machine learning-driven discovery of novel therapeutic targets in diabetic foot ulcers.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Classification of Diabetic Foot Ulcers from Images Using Machine Learning Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- The role of machine learning in advancing diabetic foot: a review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Review
- Electrodermal activity and heart rate variability for detection of peripheral abnormalities in type 2 diabetes: A review.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2023Review
- Inverse distance weighting to rapidly generate large simulation datasets.Journal of biomechanics · 2023Article
- Deep Learning-Based Classification and Feature Extraction for Predicting Pathogenesis of Foot Ulcers in Patients with Diabetes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Prediction of Diabetes Mellitus Progression Using Supervised Machine Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Machine Learning-Based Severity Prediction Tool for the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence Methodologies Applied to Technologies for Screening, Diagnosis and Care of the Diabetic Foot: A Narrative Review.Biosensors · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Diabetic neuropathy (DN) is one of the prevalent forms of neuropathy that involves alterations in biomechanical changes in the human gait. Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is one of the pervasive types of complications that arise due to DN. In the literature, for the last 50 years, researchers have been trying to observe the biomechanical changes due to DN and DFU by studying muscle electromyography (EMG) and ground reaction forces (GRF). However, the literature is contradictory. In such a scenario, we propose using Machine learning techniques to identify DN and DFU patients by using EMG and GRF data. We collected a dataset from the literature which involves three patient groups: Control (n = 6), DN (n = 6), and previous history of DFU (n = 9) and collected three lower limb muscles EMG (tibialis anterior (TA), vastus lateralis (VL), gastrocnemius lateralis (GL)), and three GRF components (GRFx, GRFy, and GRFz). Raw EMG and GRF signals were preprocessed, and different feature extraction techniques were applied to extract the best features from the signals. The extracted feature list was ranked using four different feature ranking techniques, and highly correlated features were removed. In this study, we considered different combinations of muscles and GRF components to find the best performing feature list for the identification of DN and DFU. We trained eight different conventional ML models: Discriminant analysis classifier (DAC), Ensemble classification model (ECM), Kernel classification model (KCM), k-nearest neighbor model (KNN), Linear classification model (LCM), Naive Bayes classifier (NBC), Support vector machine classifier (SVM), and Binary decision classification tree (BDC), to find the best-performing algorithm and optimized that model. We trained the optimized the ML algorithm for different combinations of muscles and GRF component features, and the performance matrix was evaluated. Our study found the KNN algorithm performed well in identifying DN and DFU, and we optimized it before training. We found the best accuracy of 96.18% for EMG analysis using the top 22 features from the chi-square feature ranking technique for features from GL and VL muscles combined. In the GRF analysis, the model showed 98.68% accuracy using the top 7 features from the Feature selection using neighborhood component analysis for the feature combinations from the GRFx-GRFz signal. In conclusion, our study has shown a potential solution for ML application in DN and DFU patient identification using EMG and GRF parameters. With careful signal preprocessing with strategic feature extraction from the biomechanical parameters, optimization of the ML model can provide a potential solution in the diagnosis and stratification of DN and DFU patients from the EMG and GRF signals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.