The development and validation of a multivariable prognostic model to predict foot ulceration in diabetes using a systematic review and individual patient data meta‐analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Diabetes guidelines recommend screening for the risk of foot ulceration but vary substantially in the underlying evidence base. Our purpose was to derive and validate a prognostic model of independent risk factors for foot ulceration in diabetes using all available individual patient data from cohort studies conducted worldwide. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 10 cohort studies of risk factors in the prediction of foot ulceration in diabetes. Predictors were selected for plausibility, availability and low heterogeneity. Logistic regression produced adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for foot ulceration by ulceration history, monofilament insensitivity, any absent pedal pulse, age, sex and diabetes duration. RESULTS: The 10 studies contained data from 16 385 participants. A history of foot ulceration produced the largest OR [6.59 (95% CI 2.49 to 17.45)], insensitivity to a 10 g monofilament [3.18 (95% CI 2.65 to 3.82)] and any absent pedal pulse [1.97 (95% CI 1.62 to 2.39)] were consistently, independently predictive. Combining three predictors produced sensitivities between 90.0% (95% CI 69.9% to 97.2%) and 95.3% (95% CI 84.5% to 98.7%); the corresponding specificities were between 12.1% (95% CI 8.2% to 17.3%) and 63.9% (95% CI 61.1% to 66.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This prognostic model of only three risk factors, a history of foot ulceration, an inability to feel a 10 g monofilament and the absence of any pedal pulse, compares favourably with more complex approaches to foot risk assessment recommended in clinical diabetes guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".