ArticleAnnals of surgery2025
Imaging-based Surgical Site Infection Detection Using Artificial Intelligence.
Article in Annals of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-enabled digital wound monitoring after cardiac surgery: a randomised controlled feasibility, safety, and acceptability trial.The Journal of hospital infection · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Integrating handcrafted and deep learning MRI signatures: an interpretable framework for predicting chemotherapy benefit in glioma.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Perioperative nursing process-oriented bundled interventions and digital monitoring for the prevention of surgical site infections.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Breast Reconstruction: Enhancing Surgical Planning, Aesthetic Outcomes, and Patient-Centered Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop an artificial intelligence-based pipeline to assess and triage patient-submitted postoperative wound images.
backgroundThe rise of outpatient surgeries, remote monitoring, and patient-submitted wound images via online portals has contributed to a growing administrative workload on clinicians. Early identification of surgical site infection (SSI) is essential for reducing postoperative morbidity.
methodsPatients ≥18 years old who underwent surgery at 9 affiliated Mayo Clinic hospitals (2019-2022) and were captured by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) were included. Eligibility required submission of one image via the patient portal within 30 days after surgery. Images were independently screened in duplicate to determine the presence of an incision. SSI outcomes were obtained from NSQIP. The developed model consisted of 2 stages: incision detection and SSI detection in images with incisions. Four pretrained architectures were evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation, with upsampling and data augmentation to mitigate class imbalance. An end-to-end pipeline, image quality assessment and sensitivity analysis stratified by race were also performed.
resultsAmong 6060 patients, the median age was 54 years (interquartile range: 40-65), 61.4% (n=3805) were female, and 92.5% (n=5731) identified as White. SSIs were confirmed in 6.2% (n=386) images. Vision Transformer outperformed all others, achieving an incision detection accuracy of 0.94 (area under the curve=0.98) and an SSI detection accuracy of 0.73 (area under the curve=0.81). In addition, it demonstrated strong performance in assessing image quality. Sensitivity analysis revealed comparable performance across racial subgroups.
conclusionThis artificial intelligence pipeline demonstrates promising performance in automating wound image assessment and SSI detection, reducing clinical workload and improving postoperative care.
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.