Protocol for Metadata and Image Collection at Diabetic Foot Ulcer Clinics: Enabling Research in Wound Analytics and Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The escalating impact of diabetes and its complications, including diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), presents global challenges in quality of life, economics, and resources, affecting around half a billion people. DFU healing is hindered by hyperglycemia-related issues and diverse diabetes-related physiological changes, necessitating ongoing personalized care. Artificial intelligence and clinical research strive to address these challenges by facilitating early detection and efficient treatments despite resource constraints. This study establishes a standardized framework for DFU data collection, introducing a dedicated case report form and a comprehensive dataset named Zivot. Results: Following this protocol, we created the Zivot dataset consisting of 269 patients with active DFUs, and about 3,700 RGB images and corresponding thermal and depth maps for the DFUs. The effectiveness of collecting a consistent and clean dataset was demonstrated using a bounding box prediction deep learning network that was constructed with EfficientNet as the feature extractor and UNet architecture. The network was trained on the Zivot dataset and the evaluation metrics showed promising values of 0.79 and 0.86 for F1-score and mAP segmentation metrics. Conclusions: This work and the Zivot database offer a foundation for further exploration of holistic and multi-modal approaches to DFU research.
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 | 0.020 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.135 | 0.059 |
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".