ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Unimodal and Multimodal Deep Learning for Pressure Injury Identification: Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
Background: Pressure injury (PI) can cause severe infections or death, and has a high global prevalence. Accurate staging is vital for effective intervention. Deep learning streamlines PI assessment; enhances efficiency; and yields practical, accurate results. Objective: The primary objective of this scoping review was to map the landscape of deep learning applications for PI identification and categorize the existing body of evidence into distinct technological trajectories: unimodal imaging and multimodal integration. Methods: We searched the following databases and sources: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science. This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Results: A total of 15 articles were included: 40% (n=6) studies applied multimodal integration, whereas 60% (n=9) applied unimodal imaging. In total, 26 models were involved. Different models exhibited varying accuracy rates in staging PI, with overall accuracy fluctuating between 54.8% and 93.7%. The same model demonstrated significant variations in recognition accuracy across different studies. Multimodal integration appeared to be a distinguishing characteristic of the studies that will progress toward clinical validation. Conclusions: The current landscape of deep learning in PI identification is heavily skewed toward unimodal imaging, creating a modality gap that hinders clinical translation. While unimodal models demonstrate high accuracy in controlled settings, future research must prioritize bridging the gap from unimodal imaging to true multimodal integration to achieve clinical-grade reliability.
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.