ArticleExperimental dermatology2026
Toward Objective Wound Edge Classification in Clinical Practice.
Article in Experimental dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wound edge assessment is a key component of chronic wound evaluation, but it remains highly subjective and affected by inter-observer variability, particularly when performed on two-dimensional clinical photographs. We retrospectively analysed 1 860 wound images acquired during routine clinical practice and independently annotated by four expert clinicians. An automated image-analysis pipeline was used to segment the wound, standardise the peri-wound border region, and estimate the three-dimensional profile of the wound edge. We first tested whether geometry-derived edge profiles alone could reproduce clinical wound edge categories. We then evaluated whether adding global visual descriptors of wound shape, colour appearance, and surface pattern improved agreement with clinicians. Inter-clinician agreement was low, confirming the intrinsic subjectivity of wound edge classification. Geometry-based analysis identified coherent edge-profile patterns but showed poor correspondence with clinical annotations. In contrast, a supervised classifier incorporating both geometric and visual features achieved agreement comparable to, and in some comparisons higher than, the agreement observed among clinicians. Clinical wound edge assessment is not driven by edge geometry alone. Visual cues such as wound shape, colour appearance, and surface pattern appear to influence expert classification and may contribute to variability. Automated image-based analysis may support more reproducible wound edge assessment, provided that it is externally validated in diverse clinical settings.
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.