Current Pedorthics | September-October 2019 | Vol.51, Issue 5 | Page 49

System for Prediction of Recurrent DFU approach also allows for unambiguous treatment of participants who suffered multiple DFU events during the study, whereas the more traditional approach of aggregating data on a per-participant basis would underreport the potential impact of the study device for those patients at highest risk. Finally, using 2-month intervals for reporting better ensures causality between the thermometric signal measured and the development of any subsequent DFU given the long duration of follow-up. For the purposes of the ROC analysis, we considered true-positive cases those in which a given temperature asymmetry threshold was exceeded in any two consecutive scans prior to the participant developing a DFU in the same 2-month interval. False-positive cases were those in which a given threshold was exceeded but the participant did not develop a subsequent DFU during the 2 months. Random 2-month intervals of participant data were sampled to assess the false- positive and true positive rates. We obtained each 2-month interval by randomly selecting a participant and then randomly selecting a start date from which to index a 2-month interval within period of participation. Given the large number of potential 2-month intervals, we conducted a sensitivity study to determine how many samples were necessary to estimate the false- positive and true-positive rates with confidence. We increased the number of samples until the ROC area under the curve converged to two significant digits. Convergence was initially achieved at 10,000 samples. To justify pooling data across the seven sites, we compared the observed DFU incidence (on both a per-patient-year and a per-patient basis) among all site-to-site permutations. We also compared site-bysite incidence against the pooled estimate. None of the comparisons yielded statistically significant differences in incidence at a = 0.05. From this, we concluded any center heterogeneity was negligible. Figure 2: Comparison of thermometric data from a participant who did not develop a new DFU during the study (left) with the data from a participant who did (right). In the thermograms, the plantar aspect of the foot is viewed from below so that the right foot is at image left. A C B D Ulcer 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 2 Weeks after Enrollment Subject I A 24 o C B 27 o C 24 o C 4 6 8 10 Weeks after Enrollment Subject II C 27 o C 20 o C D 23 o C 17 o C 20 o C Current Pedorthics | September/October 2019 47