ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Explainable machine learning for differential diagnosis of diabetic foot infection and osteomyelitis: a two-center study and clinically applicable web calculator using routine blood biomarkers.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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.
- Clinical applications of machine learning for infection assessment in diabetic foot ulcers.Frontiers in physiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiabetic foot complications, including infections and osteomyelitis, pose significant health risks, with high prevalence and amputation rates. Differentiating diabetic foot infection (DFI) from osteomyelitis (OM) is challenging due to overlapping symptoms and limitations of current diagnostic methods. This study aimed to develop and validate an explainable machine learning (ML) model using routine blood biomarkers to improve differential diagnosis and provide a clinically accessible tool.
methodsThis retrospective, two-center study included 3,612 patients diagnosed with either DFI (n = 1,699) or OM (n = 1,913). Data from Center 1 (n = 3271) were used for model development (75% training, 25% internal validation), and data from Center 2 (n = 341) served as an independent external validation cohort. A robust feature selection pipeline identified the most predictive routine biomarkers. Multiple machine learning classifiers were trained and evaluated, with the top-performing model selected based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), Brier score, and other key metrics. Explainable AI (XAI) techniques (SHAP, LIME) were used to ensure model transparency. A web-based calculator was developed for clinical translation.
resultsA LightGBM model using only six biomarkers—Age, HbA1c, Creatinine, Albumin, ESR, and Sodium—was selected as the final model. It achieved an AUC of 0.879 (95% CI 0.854–0.902) in internal validation and demonstrated excellent, generalizable performance in the external cohort with an AUC of 0.942 (95% CI 0.936–0.950). The model was well-calibrated and showed significant clinical utility in decision curve analysis. SHAP analysis quantified the specific contribution of each biomarker to individual predictions, enhancing interpretability. The final model was deployed as a user-friendly, publicly accessible web calculator.
conclusionsAn externally validated machine learning model based on six routine blood biomarkers can accurately and reliably differentiate DFI from OM. The model demonstrated high discriminative performance and clinical utility. Deployed as a transparent web calculator with integrated explainable AI, this low-cost tool has the potential to aid clinicians in diagnostic decision-making, particularly in resource-limited settings. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.