ReviewBurns & trauma2026
The role of artificial intelligence in burn assessment, complication diagnosis, and outcome prediction: a narrative review.
Review in Burns & trauma, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Bias in Burn Care: A Literature Review of Ethical Challenges.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Burn injury remains a major global health challenge, causing an estimated 180 000 deaths annually. The marked heterogeneity in burn severity, complications, and outcomes highlights the need for more objective and efficient evaluation strategies. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising approach to support clinical decision-making and improve patient care in this field. In this narrative review, we summarize the growing applications of AI in burn care, including the assessment of burn depth and total body surface area, monitoring of wound healing, prediction of postburn complications, and estimation of clinical outcomes. AI-based models have demonstrated strong performance in automating wound assessment, optimizing fluid resuscitation, and predicting complications such as sepsis, inhalation injury, and acute kidney injury. Furthermore, AI-driven prediction of mortality risk and hospital length of stay has shown potential to inform early interventions and improve resource allocation. Despite encouraging progress, most studies to date rely on small, single-center datasets and limited model validation, underscoring the need for larger, multi-institutional efforts, and standardized data sharing. Integrating AI into burn management holds great promise for enhancing diagnostic precision, forecasting outcomes, and personalizing treatment strategies. As these technologies advance, clinician familiarity and collaboration with AI tools will be critical to fully realize their potential in transforming burn 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.