SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2025
Machine learning for the prediction of diabetes-related amputation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2025. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Burn and Wound Care: Image Analysis, Prediction, and Clinical Integration.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 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
Abstract
Although machine learning is frequently used in medicine for predictive purposes, its accuracy in diabetes-related amputation (DRA) remains unclear. From establishing the database until December 2024, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, and the China National Knowledge Index (CNKI). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve (AUC), and Fagan plot analysis were used to assess the overall test performance of machine learning. Moreover, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to search for possible sources of heterogeneity. Finally, sensitivity analysis and Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test were used to evaluate the stability and publication bias, respectively. In the end, seven publications were included in this meta-analysis. The overall pooled diagnostic data were as follows: sensitivity, 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75); specificity, 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93); PLR, 3.62 (95% CI 3.36-3.89); NLR, 0.32 (95% CI 0.30-0.35); DOR, 13.55 (95% CI 11.72-15.67). The AUC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84). The Fagan plot analysis showed that the positive post-test probability is 62% and the negative post-test probability is 7%. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression showed that both the level of bias and the year of publication were sources of heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results after excluding three outlier studies. The Deeks' funnel plot suggests that publication bias has no statistical significance (P > 0.05). In summary, our results suggest the moderate accuracy of machine learning in predicting DRA.
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.