MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415052657 · doi:10.2196/71994

Evaluation of Machine Learning Model Performance in Diabetic Foot Ulcer: Retrospective Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4415052657 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Veerle Y van Velze, Hendrico L Burger, T.J. van der Steenhoven, Hani Alers, Lauren Goncalves, D. Eefting, Willem-Jan J. de Jong, H.J. Smeets, Janna C Specken Welleweerd, Joost R. van der Vorst, Sandy Uchtmann, Robert Rißmann, Jaap F. Hamming, Lampros Stergioulas, Koen E.A. van der Bogt

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHaaglanden Medisch Centrum
KeywordsBrier scoreRetrospective cohort studyCalibrationSupport vector machineFeature (linguistics)Clinical trialReceiver operating characteristicRelevance (law)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) has shown great potential in recognizing complex disease patterns and supporting clinical decision-making. Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) represent a significant multifactorial medical problem with high incidence and severe outcomes, providing an ideal example for a comprehensive framework that encompasses all essential steps for implementing ML in a clinically relevant fashion. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to provide a framework for the proper use of ML algorithms to predict clinical outcomes of multifactorial diseases and their treatments. METHODS: The comparison of ML models was performed on a DFU dataset. The selection of patient characteristics associated with wound healing was based on outcomes of statistical tests, that is, ANOVA and chi-square test, and validated on expert recommendations. Imputation and balancing of patient records were performed with MIDAS (Multiple Imputation with Denoising Autoencoders) Touch and adaptive synthetic sampling, respectively. Logistic regression, support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors, random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), Bayesian additive regression trees, and artificial neural network were trained, cross-validated, and optimized using random sampling on the patient dataset. To evaluate model calibration and clinical utility, calibration curves, Brier scores, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were performed. RESULTS: , estimated glomerular filtration rate, wound location, diabetes type, Texas wound classification, neuropathy, and wound area measurement. The SVM obtained a stable accuracy of 0.853 (95% CI 0.810-0.896) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.922 (95% CI 0.889-0.955). The RF and XGBoost acquired an accuracy of 0.838 (95% CI 0.793-0.883) and 0.815 (95% CI 0.768-0.862), respectively, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.917 (95% CI 0.883-0.951) for RF and 0.889 (95% CI 0.849-0.929) for XGBoost. SVM, RF, and XGBoost were well-calibrated, with average Brier scores around 0.127 (SD 0.013). DCA showed that the SVM provided the highest net clinical benefit across relevant risk thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Handling missing values, feature selection, and addressing class imbalance are critical components of the key steps in developing ML applications for clinical research. Seven models were selected for comparing their predictive power regarding complete wound healing, and each model representing a different branch in ML. In this initial DFU dataset used as an example, the SVM achieved the best performance in predicting clinical outcomes, followed by RF and XGBoost. The model's calibration and clinical utility were determined through calibration curves, Brier scores, and DCA, demonstrating its potential relevance in clinical decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207