Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42340329›Full record

ReviewJournal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association2026

Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Bias in Burn Care: A Literature Review of Ethical Challenges.

Joshua Khorsandi, Abu-Bakr Ahmed, Jason Mirharooni, Michael Kahen, Joshua Ahdout, Demitri Franzoni, Joshua MacDavid

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Joshua KhorsandiDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89106, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-6426-5915
Abu-Bakr AhmedDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89106, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-0844-9357
Jason MirharooniDepartment of Medicine, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL 33199, United States.ORCID 0009-0003-5719-5726
Michael KahenDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89106, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-2678-1403
Joshua AhdoutDepartment of Medicine, Touro University Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89014, United States.
Demitri FranzoniDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89106, United States.
Joshua MacDavidDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89106, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into burn care for triage, burn-depth assessment, prognostic scoring, pain management, and telemedicine-enabled resource allocation. These tools promise greater efficiency and precision, yet raise substantial ethical concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and bias. This narrative review synthesizes literature from 2010 to 2025 on AI, predictive modeling, and digital tools in burn care, supplemented by evidence from critical care, emergency medicine, radiology, dermatology, and oncology. Systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified studies that reported algorithm development or deployment and discussed or allowed inference about equity, fairness, or interpretability. Across medical domains, algorithms frequently misclassified outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, women, older adults, and individuals with complex comorbidities, while burn-specific models rarely evaluated subgroup performance or reported demographic composition. Common problems included unrepresentative datasets, opaque modeling pipelines, and the absence of formal bias audits. Ethical analyses were fragmented and seldom grounded in established frameworks of biomedical ethics or AI governance. This review argues that current trajectories risk embedding and amplifying inequities in an already vulnerable burn population. It proposes concrete strategies for fairness-oriented design, reporting, validation, and post-deployment monitoring, emphasizing justice, nonmaleficence, transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement. Responsible adoption of AI in burn care will require moving beyond technical performance alone toward explicit attention to equity and ethical safeguards throughout the model life cycle.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceBurnsBiasHumansTriagealgorithmic biasartificial intelligenceburn carefairness auditinghealth equity

Identifiers

PMID42340329
PMCPMC13551613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.