Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 29:15:3347-3359.
doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S383960. eCollection 2022.

Machine Learning Models for Predicting the Risk of Hard-to-Heal Diabetic Foot Ulcers in a Chinese Population

Shiqi Wang  1 , Chao Xia  2 , Qirui Zheng  3 , Aiping Wang  4 , Qian Tan  1
Affiliations

Machine Learning Models for Predicting the Risk of Hard-to-Heal Diabetic Foot Ulcers in a Chinese Population

Shiqi Wang et al. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. .

Abstract

Background: Early detection of hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) is vital to prevent a poor prognosis. The purpose of this work was to employ clinical characteristics to create an optimal predictive model of hard-to-heal DFUs (failing to decrease by >50% at 4 weeks) based on machine learning algorithms.

Methods: A total of 362 DFU patients hospitalized in two tertiary hospitals in eastern China were enrolled in this study. The training dataset and validation dataset were split at a ratio of 7:3. Univariate logistic analysis and clinical experience were utilized to screen clinical characteristics as predictive features. The following six machine learning algorithms were used to build prediction models for differentiating hard-to-heal DFUs: support vector machine, the naïve Bayesian (NB) model, k-nearest neighbor, general linear regression, adaptive boosting, and random forest. Five cross-validations were employed to realize the model's parameters. Accuracy, precision, recall, F1-scores, and AUCs were utilized to compare and evaluate the models' efficacy. On the basis of the best model identified, the significance of each characteristic was evaluated, and then an online calculator was developed.

Results: Independent predictors for model establishment included sex, insulin use, random blood glucose, wound area, diabetic retinopathy, peripheral arterial disease, smoking history, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. After evaluation, the NB model was identified as the most generalizable model, with an AUC of 0.864, a recall of 0.907, and an F1-score of 0.744. Random blood glucose, C-reactive protein, and wound area were determined to be the three most important influencing factors. A corresponding online calculator was created (https://predicthardtoheal.azurewebsites.net/).

Conclusion: Based on clinical characteristics, machine learning algorithms can achieve acceptable predictions of hard-to-heal DFUs, with the NB model performing the best. Our online calculator can assist doctors in identifying the possibility of hard-to-heal DFUs at the time of admission to reduce the likelihood of a dismal prognosis.

Keywords: classification; diabetic foot ulcers; hard-to-heal; machine learning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Workflow of the study; (B) Flowchart of patient selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Confusion matrix of the risk prediction models with machine learning algorithms. (A) AdaBoost: adaptive boosting; (B) GLM: general linear regression; (C) KNN: k-nearest neighbor; (D) NB: naïve Bayes; (E) RF: random forest; (F) SVM: support vector machine.
Figure 3
Figure 3
ROC curves for predicting hard-to-heal in DFU patients with machine learning algorithms.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The values of evaluation metrics of six machine learning algorithms.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Feature importance ranking of the included feature of the naïve Bayesian model.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sun H, Saeedi P, Karuranga S, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;183:109119. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2021.109119 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Saeedi P, Petersohn I, Salpea P. Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9 edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;157:107843. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2019.107843 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Walsh JW, Hoffstad OJ, Sullivan MO, Margolis DJ. Association of diabetic foot ulcer and death in a population-based cohort from the United Kingdom. Diabet Med. 2016;33(11):1493–1498. doi:10.1111/dme.13054 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cavanagh P, Attinger C, Abbas Z, Bal A, Rojas N, Xu Z-R. Cost of treating diabetic foot ulcers in five different countries. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012;28(S1):107–111. doi:10.1002/dmrr.2245 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hicks CW, Selvarajah S, Mathioudakis N, et al. Burden of infected diabetic foot ulcers on hospital admissions and costs. Ann Vasc Surg. 2016;33:149–158. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2015.11.025 - DOI - PMC - PubMed