ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2024
What characteristics are most important in stratifying patients into groups with different risk of diabetic foot ulceration?
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- An interpretable machine learning model for diabetic foot risk classification in patients with diabetes.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS/
introductionThis study aimed to assess if patients can be divided into different strata, and to explore if these correspond to the risk of diabetic foot complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsA set of 28 demographic, vascular, neurological and biomechanical measures from 2,284 (1,310 men, 974 women) patients were included in this study. A two-step cluster analysis technique was utilised to divide the patients into groups, each with similar characteristics.
resultsOnly two distinct groups: group 1 (n = 1,199; 669 men, 530 women) and group 2 (n = 1,072; 636 men, 436 women) were identified. From continuous variables, the most important predictors of grouping were: ankle vibration perception threshold (16.9 ± 4.1 V vs 31.9 ± 7.4 V); hallux vibration perception threshold (16.1 ± 4.7 V vs 33.1 ± 7.9 V); knee vibration perception threshold (18.2 ± 5.1 V vs 30.1 ± 6.5 V); average temperature sensation threshold to cold (29.2 ± 1.1°C vs 26.7 ± 0.7°C) and hot (35.4 ± 1.8°C vs 39.5 ± 1.0°C) stimuli, and average temperature tolerance threshold to hot stimuli at the foot (43.4 ± 0.9°C vs 46.6 ± 1.3°C). From categorical variables, only impaired sensation to touch was found to have importance at the highest levels: 87.4% of those with normal sensation were in group 1; whereas group 2 comprised 95.1%, 99.3% and 90.5% of those with decreased, highly-decreased and absent sensation to touch, respectively. In addition, neuropathy (monofilament) was a moderately important predictor (importance level 0.52) of grouping with 26.2% of participants with neuropathy in group 1 versus 73.5% of participants with neuropathy in group 2. Ulceration during follow up was almost fivefold higher in group 2 versus group 1.
conclusionsImpaired sensations to temperature, vibration and touch were shown to be the strongest factors in stratifying patients into two groups with one group having almost 5-fold risk of future foot ulceration compared to the other.
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.