# Morphological Foot Model for Temperature Pattern Analysis Proposed for Diabetic Foot Disorders
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Partial Foot Amputations or Deformations  
One of the most common limitations in the assessment of diabetic foot disorders is that the contralateral foot analysis is prevented by the existence of partial foot amputations or deformations. In these cases, there is not a straightforward method to perform a comparison if the same deformation is not present on both feet or simply because the severity of the amputation does not allow it [15]. Furthermore, despite the fact that these are common features exhibited by persons affected by diabetic foot disorders, these patients are usually excluded from the assessment studies [15; 46]. The workflow presented here, in which a standard foot model is employed for image analysis, facilitates the assessment, to a certain extent, in case of partial amputations or deformations. The contralateral analysis of the missing areas cannot be performed. However, the remaining areas can be compared to the opposite foot of the same patient, via spatial registration to the standard model extracted for each foot, or directly to the model associated with a healthy subject. In order to demonstrate the performance of the workflow described in Figure 2, the left foot segmentation of a random male subject was modified to simulate various degrees of partial foot amputations. Three configurations were implemented in which the extent of the amputation considered solely the big toe, several toes and up to half foot. Figure 4 illustrates the successful completion of the main steps within the workflow considering these partial foot amputations. Table 5 lists the overlap measures after registering the segmentation mask to the left foot model as displayed in Figure 4b,e,h. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline
**Foot Model** & **Foot** & **DICE** & **IoU** & **Specificity** & **Sensitivity** & **False Positives** & **False Negatives** \\ \hline Female & L & 97.66 \(\pm\) 0.61 & 95.44 \(\pm\) 1.15 & 99.76 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 97.02 \(\pm\) 0.75 & 2.98 \(\pm\) 0.75 & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.19 \\ (37) & R & 97.72 \(\pm\) 0.58 & 95.55 \(\pm\) 1.11 & 99.78 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 97.03 \(\pm\) 1.12 & 2.97 \(\pm\) 1.12 & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.09 \\ \hline Female & L & 97.62 \(\pm\) 0.56 & 95.35 \(\pm\) 1.06 & 99.73 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 96.91 \(\pm\) 0.57 & 3.09 \(\pm\) 0.57 & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.17 \\ (36–38) & R & 97.56 \(\pm\) 0.70 & 95.25 \(\pm\) 1.34 & 99.76 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 96.60 \(\pm\) 1.27 & 3.41 \(\pm\) 1.27 & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.11 \\ \hline Male & L & 97.72 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 95.55 \(\pm\) 1.05 & 99.71 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 96.90 \(\pm\) 1.21 & 3.10 \(\pm\) 1.21 & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.12 \\ (43) & R & 98.01 \(\pm\) 0.47 & 96.10 \(\pm\) 0.89 & 99.73 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 97.43 \(\pm\) 0.77 & 2.57 \(\pm\) 0.77 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.12 \\ \hline Male & L & 97.41 \(\pm\) 0.60 & 94.96 \(\pm\) 1.15 & 99.63 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 96.63 \(\pm\) 1.02 & 3.37 \(\pm\) 1.02 & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.17 \\ (42–44) & R & 97.59 \(\pm\) 0.65 & 95.30 \(\pm\) 1.24 & 99.64 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 96.89 \(\pm\) 0.93 & 3.11 \(\pm\) 0.93 & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.19 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Overlap measures for the models associated with the right and left feet, for female and male groups of subjects whose most common European foot sizes were 37 and 43, respectively. An intermediate range was correspondingly considered, that is, between 36 and 38 for the female model and 42 and 44 for the male. Average values and their corresponding standard deviations are expressed as percentages. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Figure 4** & **DICE** & **IoU** & **Specificity** & **Sensitivity** & **False Positives** & **False Negatives** \\ \hline (b) & 93.89 & 88.48 & 99.37 & 96.90 & 9.27 & 2.73 \\ (e) & 88.78 & 79.82 & 98.92 & 94.32 & 18.76 & 2.15 \\ (h) & 69.48 & 53.23 & 97.59 & 84.62 & 1.66 & 46.29 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Overlap measures between the model associated with the left foot and the corresponding segmentation simulating an amputation as shown in Figure 4. Values are expressed as percentages.