ArticleScientific reports2025
Enhancing chronic wound assessment through agreement analysis and tissue segmentation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Progress on Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2026Review
- Development of a multi-task learning framework with gradnorm for precise wound tissue analysis.PloS one · 2026Article
- Accurate AI-Based Characterization of Wound Size and Tissue Composition in Hard-to-Heal Wounds.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate monitoring of chronic wound progression is crucial for assessing healing dynamics. However, the current manual process of tissue segmentation and quantification, which is an indicator of the healing progress, is time-consuming and subject to variability, so automated methods that can effectively monitor wound healing are required. In this work, inter-rater agreement analyses were conducted to evaluate the consistency of manual annotations performed by multiple experts and an automated methodology for tissue segmentation leveraging advanced deep learning techniques is proposed. For this, the convolutional neural network DeepLabV3-R50 and a transformer-based approach (SegFormer-B0) were explored. Furthermore, the potential of transferring knowledge from open wound segmentation models trained on different available datasets and fine-tuning them for this specific task was investigated. The tissue segmentation model is integrated into a framework that combines a wound and reference marker detection model with a wound segmentation model to refine the predicted tissue masks. The results show the benefits of employing previous knowledge gained from simpler tasks within the same domain, as well as the efficacy of post-processing operations. The top-performing tissue segmentation model, DeepLabV3-R50, achieved an overall mean Intersection over Union of 62.95% and a mean Dice score of 76.82% for the three analysed tissues on the Wounds dataset, when assessed independently. Considering the complete framework, the same model returns a mean Intersection over Union of 59.67% and a mean Dice of 74.38%, resulting in mean absolute errors of 14.33%, 14.31% and 8.84% for granulation, slough and eschar proportion estimation, respectively. Moreover, the obtained inter-rater agreement scores still emphasize the inherent complexity of the task, as even experienced healthcare professionals may differ in delineating tissue boundaries. Given the proven intricacy of tissue characterisation and the promising results that were achieved, the proposed pipeline contributes to streamline the tissue segmentation and quantification task, leading to the automation of the wound bed characterisation process and enhancing consistency and efficiency in wound healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.