ArticleScientific reports2026
Proposed dense variational autoencoder model integrated with contrastive learning for foot ulcer classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- AI-Based Models for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment: Scoping Review.JMIR diabetes · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The most serious complication of diabetes, Diabetic Foot Ulcer (DFU), can result in chronic infection, damage to tissues, and even amputation if not identified in a timely way. It is even more dangerous for disabled people. Accurate and timely diagnosis is therefore essential for improved patient outcomes. However, it is difficult to perform a manual assessment of DFU images due to variations in the textures of ulcers, light effects, and severities. Herein is presented an enhanced deep learning framework DenseNet121 with Variational Autoencoder and Contrastive Learning (DenseVAE-CL) which incorporates DenseNet121 to extract robust features and integrates a Variational Autoencoder together with Contrastive Learning to enhance representation discrimination. The model was trained and tested on 2,673 publicly available images from the Kaggle DFU dataset, which was divided into training, validation, and testing subsets in a ratio of 80:10:10, respectively. DenseVAE-CL emerged as the best performer with an accuracy of 99.6%, precision of 99.5%, recall of 99.4%, specificity of 100%, sensitivity of 98.9%, an F1-score of 99.5%, and 0.99 Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC). Five-fold cross-validation further demonstrated stable generalization with a mean accuracy of 99.4 ± 0.2%. Moreover, calibration analysis confirmed the model’s reliability since a mean confidence of 0.9031 for abnormal cases and 0.9692 for normal cases results in an expected calibration error of 0.0457. Visualization through Grad-CAM and VAE residual heatmaps revealed sharp localization of ulcer regions, hence improving interpretability.
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.