ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Reliable Detection, Unreliable Clinical Decision-making: Artificial Intelligence Models in Burn Assessment.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly used for visual interpretation tasks. Whether commercially available models can be applied to burn surgery, and to what extent, remains unclear. We evaluated a clinical chain from visual recognition (distinguishing burns from nonburned skin) to treatment decision-making (debridement versus immediate skin grafting), including accuracy, output consistency, and skin tone subgroup performance. Methods: Four multimodal large language models (GPT-5.4 Pro, Grok 4.1, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.6) evaluated 50 cropped clinical photographs (25 burns and 25 nonburns) across 5 independent runs (n = 4000 total assessments). Models classified burn presence and treatment recommendation. Ground truth was established by expert consensus among plastic surgeons. Reproducibility was assessed using Fleiss κ. Results: Burn detection was near-perfect (97.2%-100%, κ = 0.896-1.000) and equivalent across Fitzpatrick skin tone strata. Treatment accuracy in burn cases ranged from 24.8% to 72.8%, with 3 models performing below the majority-class baseline. Reproducibility for treatment decisions dropped to κ = 0.132-0.385 in 3 models, with inconsistent recommendations for identical images. Error patterns were systematic and opposing across models. Conclusions: AI systems reliably detected burns but failed to reliably recommend treatment. Reproducibility remained high for visual recognition but substantially lower for clinical decision-making. The clinical chain breaks at the transition from perception to decision, limiting the current applicability in burn surgery. The high sensitivity (94.4%-100%) and specificity (100%) for burn detection suggest that visual recognition may serve as a reliable foundation for future AI-assisted triage in burn care.
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.