ArticleExperimental dermatology2026
AI-Based Segmentation of Wound Types Caused by Epidermolysis Bullosa.
Article in Experimental dermatology, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) defines a group of rare, inherited and currently incurable genetic disorders characterized by excessive skin fragility, with blistering and wounding of skin and mucous membranes upon minor mechanical trauma. Accurate wound assessment is imperative for measuring and longitudinal monitoring of disease activity and for determining the most accurate treatment. In this work, we describe the annotation of clinical images from EB patients and the subsequent training of both classical convolutional neural networks and state-of-the-art transformer-based architectures for the segmentation of various categories of EB skin wounds. Utilising our dataset of 260 EB images from 18 patients and the corresponding 536 expert-annotated segmentation masks, we train and evaluate five different model architectures and compare their performance against human inter-annotator agreement. External evaluation was not possible because no comparable annotated EB datasets are available. Our results demonstrate that transformer-based models, particularly Mask2Former, achieve near-expert-level segmentation accuracy in five of the seven categories and even surpass human inter-annotator agreement in two. Models based on convolutional neural networks perform noticeably worse and generally fail to accurately segment rarely occurring classes. Averaged over all categories, Mask2Former achieved a mean dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 52.9%, compared to an inter-annotator agreement of 55.9%. These results indicate that Mask2Former has the potential to serve as a clinical decision support system to improve wound segmentation and categorization. Furthermore, this model provides a foundation for planned future applications in automated wound measurement, wound progression monitoring and documentation and the development of a smartphone-based telemedicine application.
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.