MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4410243216 · doi:10.2196/69408

Diabetic Foot Ulcer Classification Models Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Techniques: Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4410243216 sur OpenAlexaff
Manuel Alberto Silva, Emma Hamilton, David Russell, Frances L. Game, Sheila C. Wang, Sofia Baptista, Matilde Monteiro‐Soares

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Établissements canadiensWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPreprintArtificial intelligenceMachine learningComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related foot ulceration (DFU) is a common complication of diabetes, with a significant impact on survival, health care costs, and health-related quality of life. The prognosis of DFU varies widely among individuals. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot recently updated their guidelines on how to classify ulcers using "classical" classification and scoring systems. No system was recommended for individual prognostication, and the group considered that more detail in ulcer characterization was needed and that machine learning (ML)-based models may be the solution. Despite advances in the field, no assessment of available evidence was done. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and collect available evidence assessing the ability of ML-based models to predict clinical outcomes in people with DFU. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE database (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore for papers published up to July 2023. Studies were eligible if they were anterograde analytical studies that examined the prognostic abilities of ML models in predicting clinical outcomes in a population that included at least 80% of adults with DFU. The literature was screened independently by 2 investigators (MMS and DAR or EH in the first phase, and MMS and MAS in the second phase) for eligibility criteria and data extracted. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool and the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool by 2 investigators (MMS and MAS) independently. A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: We retrieved a total of 2412 references after removing duplicates, of which 167 were subjected to full-text screening. Two references were added from searching relevant studies' lists of references. A total of 11 studies, comprising 13 papers, were included focusing on 3 outcomes: wound healing, lower extremity amputation, and mortality. Overall, 55 predictive models were created using mostly clinical characteristics, random forest as the developing method, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) as a discrimination accuracy measure. AUROC varied from 0.56 to 0.94, with the majority of the models reporting an AUROC equal or superior to 0.8 but lacking 95% CIs. All studies were found to have a high risk of bias, mainly due to a lack of uniform variable definitions, outcome definitions and follow-up periods, insufficient sample sizes, and inadequate handling of missing data. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several ML-based models predicting clinical outcomes with good discriminatory ability in people with DFU. Due to the focus on development and internal validation of the models, the proposal of several models in each study without selecting the "best one," and the use of nonexplainable techniques, the use of this type of model is clearly impaired. Future studies externally validating explainable models are needed so that ML models can become a reality in DFU care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022308248; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022308248.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,016
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,369
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0160,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,312
Tête enseignante GPT0,508
Écart entre enseignants0,196 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations14
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchMême sujetDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementTravaux en français237 207