Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42255441›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026

Interpretable machine learning for predicting major amputation risk in hospitalized diabetic foot ulcer patients: a single-center study with temporal external validation.

Meiling Zou, Shang Ju

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Meiling ZouDepartment of Peripheral Vascular Surgery, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shang JuDepartment of Peripheral Vascular Surgery, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Diabetic foot ulcers are a leading cause of non-traumatic lower-limb amputation, but early identification of inpatients at high risk of major amputation remains challenging. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive admissions for diabetic foot ulcers at a single center, developing models in a 2019-2020 cohort and temporally validating them in a later 2024 cohort. The outcome was in-hospital major lower-extremity amputation above the ankle. Candidate predictors were routinely available admission variables within 24 hours, including comorbidities, bedside limb/ulcer assessment, and standard laboratory tests. We compared logistic regression, elastic net, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting models and used Shapley additive explanations to provide patient-level interpretability. Results: The random forest model showed the best overall discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.977 in internal testing and 0.984 in temporal validation, and acceptable calibration. The most influential predictors reflected limb perfusion and infection severity and included perfusion grade, ankle-brachial index, maintenance dialysis, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, and prior minor amputation. Conclusions: An explainable admission-data model can support early inpatient risk stratification for major amputation in diabetic foot ulcer patients and may help prioritize timely multidisciplinary care.

Indexed as

Amputation, SurgicalDiabetic FootHospitalizationMachine LearningAgedBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrediction AlgorithmsRandom ForestRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factorsdiabetic foot ulcerexplainable modelhospitalizationmajor amputationrandom forestrisk predictionShapley additive explanationstemporal validation

Identifiers

PMID42255441
PMCPMC13236543

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.