Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40991939›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Diabetic Foot Ulcer Classification Models Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Techniques: Systematic Review.

Manuel Alberto Silva, Emma J Hamilton, David A Russell, Fran Game, Sheila C Wang, Sofia Baptista, Matilde Monteiro-Soares

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Manuel Alberto SilvaUSF Sanus Carandá, ULS Braga, Braga, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2604-5405
Emma J HamiltonDepartment of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1617-6353
David A RussellLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1293-5618
Fran GameUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5294-4789
Sheila C WangDivision of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8123-1713
Sofia BaptistaMEDCIDS-Departamento de Medicina da Comunidade Informação e Decisão em Saúde, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2604-9369
Matilde Monteiro-SoaresCINTESIS@RISE-Center for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4586-2910

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes-related foot ulceration (DFU) is a common complication of diabetes, with a significant impact on survival, health care costs, and health-related quality of life. The prognosis of DFU varies widely among individuals. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot recently updated their guidelines on how to classify ulcers using "classical" classification and scoring systems. No system was recommended for individual prognostication, and the group considered that more detail in ulcer characterization was needed and that machine learning (ML)-based models may be the solution. Despite advances in the field, no assessment of available evidence was done.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify and collect available evidence assessing the ability of ML-based models to predict clinical outcomes in people with DFU.

methodsWe searched the MEDLINE database (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore for papers published up to July 2023. Studies were eligible if they were anterograde analytical studies that examined the prognostic abilities of ML models in predicting clinical outcomes in a population that included at least 80% of adults with DFU. The literature was screened independently by 2 investigators (MMS and DAR or EH in the first phase, and MMS and MAS in the second phase) for eligibility criteria and data extracted. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool and the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool by 2 investigators (MMS and MAS) independently. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

resultsWe retrieved a total of 2412 references after removing duplicates, of which 167 were subjected to full-text screening. Two references were added from searching relevant studies' lists of references. A total of 11 studies, comprising 13 papers, were included focusing on 3 outcomes: wound healing, lower extremity amputation, and mortality. Overall, 55 predictive models were created using mostly clinical characteristics, random forest as the developing method, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) as a discrimination accuracy measure. AUROC varied from 0.56 to 0.94, with the majority of the models reporting an AUROC equal or superior to 0.8 but lacking 95% CIs. All studies were found to have a high risk of bias, mainly due to a lack of uniform variable definitions, outcome definitions and follow-up periods, insufficient sample sizes, and inadequate handling of missing data.

conclusionsWe identified several ML-based models predicting clinical outcomes with good discriminatory ability in people with DFU. Due to the focus on development and internal validation of the models, the proposal of several models in each study without selecting the "best one," and the use of nonexplainable techniques, the use of this type of model is clearly impaired. Future studies externally validating explainable models are needed so that ML models can become a reality in DFU care.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022308248; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022308248.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDiabetic FootMachine LearningHumansPrognosisartificial intelligenceclassificationdiabetic footmachine learningprognosis.

Identifiers

PMID40991939
PMCPMC12508669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.