ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Validation of a You Only Look Once-LabelMe Hybrid AI Model for Automated Assessment of Pressure Injury Size and Pocket.
Article in International wound journal, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative assessment of the pressure injury size (S) and pocket (P, undermining) is essential for evaluating wound healing. Conventional LabelMe annotations often lead to oversegmentation, whereas object detection with You Only Look Once (YOLO) enables accurate wound localization. Here, we developed a hybrid AI model that combines LabelMe segmentation with YOLO gating. This single-centre retrospective study compared two models: LabelMe-Seeded Auto-Recognition (LSAR) and YOLO-gated LSAR (YGL). Model performance was evaluated by concordance rate and weighted Cohen's κ for DESIGN-R staging and by mean absolute error (MAE) and median (interquartile range) for area error. Overall, 1017 wound images (training: 979; testing: 38) were analysed. For S, the YGL model achieved higher concordance (85.7%, κ = 0.969) and smaller area errors than did the LSAR. For P, the YGL model demonstrated higher concordance and smaller area errors than did the LSAR model. The YOLO-LabelMe hybrid model improved the stage concordance and size accuracy compared with LabelMe alone. Despite the residual outliers in P assessment, this approach represents a promising step towards automated, clinically adaptable wound measurements.
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.