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.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.