MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development and validation of a prediction model for amputation risk in patients with diabetic foot ulcers based on systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W7084089631 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmputationReceiver operating characteristicGangreneYouden's J statisticRisk assessmentRisk factorDiabetic footCohortConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To develop and validate a prediction model for risk of amputation in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) based on systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods The studies on the risk factors of amputation in DFU patients was retrieved by using subject words+free words. After screening, 37 cohort studies were finally included, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used for quality evaluation. Meta-analysis was performed on the risk factors of amputation in DFU. Then a prediction model for DFU amputation risk were constructed based on the statistically significant risk factors in the meta-analysis. The corresponding β value was calculated based on the combined odds ratio (OR) value of each risk factor, and each risk factor was scored to establish a scoring system model. The clinical data of 453 DFU patients hospitalized in our department from 2021 to 2023 were collected as a validation cohort. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the model performance. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated, and the optimal cutoff score was determined by calculation of the maximum Youden index through sensitivity and specificity. Results Our meta-analysis showed a cumulative amputation rate of approximately 34.65% in 11 779 DFU patients. The final risk prediction models include gangrene [OR=11.92 (5.86~24.24)], ulcer depth [OR=4.93 (2.52~9.64)], osteomyelitis [OR=3.19 (2.36~4.29)], previous amputation history [OR=3.19 (2.00~5.09)] and lower extremity arterial disease [OR=3.10 (2.31~4.17)]. According to the weights of each risk factor, the total score of the model is 76, and the optimal cut-off score is 36.5. The prediction model performed well, with an AUC value of 0.864 (0.824, 0.903), a sensitivity of 0.743, a specificity of 0.859, and an accuracy rate of 83.00%. Conclusion A prediction model for DFU amputation risk is developed based on risk factor scoring, and has good discrimination and calibration, providing effective scientific basis for clinical research and clinical decision-making related to DFU amputation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207