ArticleBiomedical engineering online2026
Temporal machine learning framework for diabetic foot ulcer healing trajectory prediction.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDiabetic foot ulcer management relies predominantly on reactive treatment adjustments based on current wound status. This study developed an accessible machine learning framework using routinely collected clinical metadata (no imaging required) to predict healing phase transitions at the next clinical appointment, enabling proactive treatment planning with an integrated recommendation system.
methodsLongitudinal data from 268 patients with 329 distinct ulcers across 890 appointments were analyzed. Features (n
resultsFeature selection identified 30 essential predictors, achieving 70.9% dimensionality reduction. The optimized classifier demonstrated 78% ± 4% accuracy with balanced category performance (per-class F1 scores: 0.72-0.84) and average AUC of 0.90. Historical phase features dominated predictive importance. The integrated treatment recommendation system achieved 88.7% within-category agreement for offloading prescriptions across all chronicity levels. Dressing recommendations demonstrated chronicity-stratified performance, with match rates declining from 83.7% for acute wounds to 5.6% for very chronic wounds, appropriately reflecting clinical reality that treatment-resistant wounds require individualized therapeutic experimentation.
conclusionsThis framework demonstrates potential for next-appointment trajectory prediction using accessible clinical metadata without specialized imaging, pending prospective validation. The chronicity-dependent recommendation performance appropriately distinguishes wounds amenable to standardized protocols from treatment-resistant cases requiring iterative experimentation.
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.