ReviewJMIR diabetes2026
AI-Based Models for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment: Scoping Review.
Review in JMIR diabetes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are serious complications of diabetes that contribute substantially to morbidity, mortality, and health care burden. Accurate and timely wound assessment is essential for effective DFU management; however, conventional assessment methods are limited by subjectivity, time constraints, and interobserver variability. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map and synthesize evidence regarding the development and application of artificial intelligence (AI)-based models for DFU assessment. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PubMed, ProQuest, and Scopus for studies published between 2014 and 2026. Study selection and data charting were conducted independently by two reviewers using predefined inclusion criteria based on the PCC (population, concept, context) framework. Extracted data were synthesized narratively and categorized according to major AI application domains. Results: A total of 654 records were identified, of which 46 studies met the inclusion criteria. The included studies predominantly focused on image segmentation, diagnostic classification, and risk prediction or monitoring of DFUs. Convolutional neural networks were the most commonly applied models, with performance evaluated using metrics such as accuracy, Dice similarity coefficient, and area under the curve. Most studies relied on retrospective, single-center datasets, with limited external validation and minimal real-world clinical implementation. Conclusions: AI-based models demonstrate strong potential to enhance DFU assessment and monitoring by improving accuracy and efficiency. However, significant gaps remain in terms of dataset diversity, external validation, and integration into clinical workflows. Future research should prioritize prospective validation, standardized datasets, and real-world implementation to support safe and effective clinical adoption.
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.