ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Novel two-stage deep learning framework for automated pressure injury classification.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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.
- Integrating Wound Images and Clinical Text for Pressure Injury Assessment and Treatment Recommendation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aims to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) framework for automatic pressure injury (PI) staging directly from raw clinical images, without requiring manual lesion localisation. By integrating a two-stage deep learning approach-combining object detection and image classification-the proposed system seeks to improve diagnostic accuracy, reduce subjectivity and support consistent staging in real-world clinical workflows.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study using 1807 PI images from China Medical University Hospital collected between 2020 and 2024. Lesions were annotated by five senior nurses with consensus. YOLOv9 was used for lesion detection, and DenseNet161 for staging. Performance metrics included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, area under the curve (AUC) and mean average precision (mAP)@0.5.
resultsThe object detection model (YOLOv9) achieved an mAP@0.5 of 0.796. On the independent test set (n=365), the staging model demonstrated an overall accuracy of 0.775, sensitivity of 0.775, specificity of 0.955, precision of 0.779 and F1 score of 0.775. DISCUSSION: The proposed two-stage AI framework-using YOLOv9 for lesion localisation and DenseNet161 for staging-demonstrated performance comparable to or exceeding previously reported approaches, while offering improved clinical interpretability when applied to real-world clinical images. By separating detection and classification, the framework reduced background noise and improved the ability to distinguish visually similar PI stages. However, challenges remain in handling intra-wound heterogeneity, subtle early-stage boundaries and variability in image quality.
conclusionsThis two-stage AI system may assist clinical staff by providing standardised, reproducible PI staging from clinical images, with potential for integration into nursing workflows.
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.