ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Integrating Wound Images and Clinical Text for Pressure Injury Assessment and Treatment Recommendation.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Abstract
Pressure injury management requires coordinated decisions on wound staging, debridement, and dressing selection, yet most computational studies focus on isolated tasks using a single data modality. This study developed a multimodal, multi-task framework integrating wound photographs and clinical text to support pressure injury stage classification, debridement necessity prediction, primary dressing recommendation, and secondary dressing recommendation. Models were trained on an expert-annotated public dataset and externally validated using an independent private cohort. We systematically compared image-only models, text-only models, large language model-based approaches, conventional image-text fusion strategies, and image-language model combinations. Among the evaluated models, ResNet-50 combined with DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B showed the best overall balance across classification performance, text-generation quality, and validation robustness. On the validation set, the final model achieved 82.92% accuracy, 81.26% macro-F1, and 99.01% area under the curve for stage classification, and 89.91% accuracy, 89.83% macro-F1, and 96.24% area under the curve for debridement prediction. For dressing recommendation, the model achieved ROUGE-1 scores of 58.30% and 61.06% for primary and secondary dressings, respectively. Interpretability analyses indicated clinically relevant image attention and text attribution patterns. These findings suggest that multimodal learning may provide a clinically aligned decision-support approach for pressure injury assessment and treatment recommendations.
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.