Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39652559›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Wound imaging software and digital platform to assist review of surgical wounds using patient smartphones: The development and evaluation of artificial intelligence (WISDOM AI study).

Melissa Rochon, Judith Tanner, James Jurkiewicz, Jacqueline Beckhelling, Akuha Aondoakaa, Keith Wilson, Luxmi Dhoonmoon, Max Underwood, Lara Mason, Roy Harris and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Melissa RochonGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1101-2256
Judith TannerUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0023-3149
James JurkiewiczIslacare Ltd, London, United Kingdom.
Jacqueline BeckhellingUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, United Kingdom.
Akuha AondoakaaIslacare Ltd, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8753-8748
Keith WilsonLiverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Luxmi DhoonmoonCentral and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Max UnderwoodIslacare Ltd, London, United Kingdom.
Lara MasonIslacare Ltd, London, United Kingdom.
Roy HarrisUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Karen CariagaGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0006-5525-2362

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSurgical patients frequently experience post-operative complications at home. Digital remote monitoring of surgical wounds via image-based systems has emerged as a promising solution for early detection and intervention. However, the increased clinician workload from reviewing patient-submitted images presents a challenge. This study utilises artificial intelligence (AI) to prioritise surgical wound images for clinician review, aiming to efficiently manage workload. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Conducted from September 2023 to March 2024, the study phases included compiling a training dataset of 37,974 images, creating a testing set of 3,634 images, developing an AI algorithm using 'You Only Look Once' models, and conducting prospective tests compared against clinical nurse specialists' evaluations. The primary objective was to validate the AI's sensitivity in prioritising wound reviews, alongside assessing intra-rater reliability. Secondary objectives focused on specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for various wound features.

resultsThe AI demonstrated a sensitivity of 89%, exceeding the target of 85% and proving effective in identifying cases requiring priority review. Intra-rater reliability was perfect, achieving 100% consistency in repeated assessments. Observations indicated variations in detecting wound characteristics across different skin tones; sensitivity was notably lower for incisional separation and discolouration in darker skin tones. Specificity remained high overall, with some results favouring darker skin tones. The NPV were similar for both light and dark skin tones. However, the NPV was slightly higher for dark skin tones at 95% (95% CI: 93%-97%) compared to 91% (95% CI: 87%-92%) for light skin tones. Both PPV and NPV varied, especially in identifying sutures or staples, indicating areas needing further refinement to ensure equitable accuracy.

conclusionThe AI algorithm not only met but surpassed the expected sensitivity for identifying priority cases, showing high reliability. Nonetheless, the disparities in performance across skin tones, especially in recognising certain wound characteristics like discolouration or incisional separation, underline the need for ongoing training and adaptation of the AI to ensure fairness and effectiveness across diverse patient groups.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceSmartphoneSurgical WoundAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsSoftware

Identifiers

PMID39652559
PMCPMC11627411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.