A Multi-Faceted Digital Health Solution for Monitoring and Managing Diabetic Foot Ulcer Risk: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are a devastating complication of diabetes. There are numerous challenges with preventing diabetic foot complications and barriers to achieving the care processes suggested in established foot care guidelines. Multi-faceted digital health solutions, which combine multimodal sensing, patient-facing biofeedback, and remote patient monitoring (RPM), show promise in improving our ability to understand, prevent, and manage DFUs. METHODS: Patients with a history of diabetic plantar foot ulcers were enrolled in a prospective cohort study and equipped with custom sensory insoles to track plantar pressure, plantar temperature, step count, and adherence data. Sensory insole data enabled patient-facing biofeedback to cue active plantar offloading in response to sustained high plantar pressures, and RPM assessments in response to data trends of concern in plantar pressure, plantar temperature, or sensory insole adherence. Three non-consecutive case participants that ultimately presented with pre-ulcerative lesions (a callus and/or erythematous area on the plantar surface of the foot) during the study were selected for this case series. RESULTS: Across three illustrative patients, continuous plantar pressure monitoring demonstrated promise for empowering both the patient and provider with information for data-driven management of pressure offloading treatments. CONCLUSION: Multi-faceted digital health solutions can naturally enable and reinforce the integrative foot care guidelines. Multi-modal sensing across multiple physiologic domains supports the monitoring of foot health at various stages along the DFU pathogenesis pathway. Furthermore, digital health solutions equipped with remote patient monitoring unlock new opportunities for personalizing treatments, providing periodic self-care reinforcement, and encouraging patient engagement-key tools for improving patient adherence to their diabetic foot care plan.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".