ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2026
Predicting wound healing outcomes: a comparative accuracy analysis of AI-driven indices and percent area reduction.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Wounds represent a major global health and economic burden, with chronic wounds affecting millions annually and costing medical care providers over $126 billion in the USA alone. Current assessment tools, such as percent area reduction (PAR), are widely used but limited by subjectivity and suboptimal predictive accuracy, particularly for complex wound types. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered Healing Index (HI) in predicting delayed healing compared with PAR, leveraging the growing integration of AI into healthcare to enhance wound assessment and prognostic capabilities. Methods and analysis: This retrospective study evaluated the performance of the AI-powered HI in predicting delayed healing for pressure injuries, venous ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers and arterial ulcers. Using a clinically validated dataset of 173 816 wounds collected via a digital wound care solution, the HI model's predictive accuracy was compared with PAR. The HI incorporated objective wound characteristics, such as tissue composition and exudate, to forecast healing trajectories. Results: By week 3, the HI achieved a balanced accuracy of 65%, surpassing PAR, which reached the same level only in week 4. This earlier prediction enables more timely treatment adjustments, facilitating improved outcomes and reducing healthcare costs. Conclusion: The AI-powered HI demonstrates significant potential for transforming wound care by providing more accurate, objective and earlier identification of non-healing wounds. Its integration into clinical practice could enhance resource allocation, optimise treatment strategies and reduce the economic burden of chronic wounds. Further validation across diverse healthcare settings is warranted to ensure equitable implementation.
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.