Joshua Khorsandi, Abu-Bakr Ahmed, Jason Mirharooni, Michael Kahen, Joshua Ahdout, Demitri Franzoni, Joshua MacDavid
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Bias in Burn Care: A Literature Review of Ethical Challenges.","authors":"Joshua Khorsandi, Abu-Bakr Ahmed, Jason Mirharooni, Michael Kahen, Joshua Ahdout, Demitri Franzoni, Joshua MacDavid","doi":"10.1093/jbcr/irag105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into burn care for triage, burn-depth assessment, prognostic scoring, pain management, and telemedicine-enabled resource allocation. These tools promise greater efficiency and precision, yet raise substantial ethical concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and bias. This narrative review synthesizes literature from 2010 to 2025 on AI, predictive modeling, and digital tools in burn care, supplemented by evidence from critical care, emergency medicine, radiology, dermatology, and oncology. Systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified studies that reported algorithm development or deployment and discussed or allowed inference about equity, fairness, or interpretability. Across medical domains, algorithms frequently misclassified outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, women, older adults, and individuals with complex comorbidities, while burn-specific models rarely evaluated subgroup performance or reported demographic composition. Common problems included unrepresentative datasets, opaque modeling pipelines, and the absence of formal bias audits. Ethical analyses were fragmented and seldom grounded in established frameworks of biomedical ethics or AI governance. This review argues that current trajectories risk embedding and amplifying inequities in an already vulnerable burn population. It proposes concrete strategies for fairness-oriented design, reporting, validation, and post-deployment monitoring, emphasizing justice, nonmaleficence, transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement. Responsible adoption of AI in burn care will require moving beyond technical performance alone toward explicit attention to equity and ethical safeguards throughout the model life cycle.</p>","PeriodicalId":15205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","volume":" ","pages":"1380-1387"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13551613/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irag105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into burn care for triage, burn-depth assessment, prognostic scoring, pain management, and telemedicine-enabled resource allocation. These tools promise greater efficiency and precision, yet raise substantial ethical concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and bias. This narrative review synthesizes literature from 2010 to 2025 on AI, predictive modeling, and digital tools in burn care, supplemented by evidence from critical care, emergency medicine, radiology, dermatology, and oncology. Systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified studies that reported algorithm development or deployment and discussed or allowed inference about equity, fairness, or interpretability. Across medical domains, algorithms frequently misclassified outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, women, older adults, and individuals with complex comorbidities, while burn-specific models rarely evaluated subgroup performance or reported demographic composition. Common problems included unrepresentative datasets, opaque modeling pipelines, and the absence of formal bias audits. Ethical analyses were fragmented and seldom grounded in established frameworks of biomedical ethics or AI governance. This review argues that current trajectories risk embedding and amplifying inequities in an already vulnerable burn population. It proposes concrete strategies for fairness-oriented design, reporting, validation, and post-deployment monitoring, emphasizing justice, nonmaleficence, transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement. Responsible adoption of AI in burn care will require moving beyond technical performance alone toward explicit attention to equity and ethical safeguards throughout the model life cycle.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Burn Care & Research provides the latest information on advances in burn prevention, research, education, delivery of acute care, and research to all members of the burn care team. As the official publication of the American Burn Association, this is the only U.S. journal devoted exclusively to the treatment and research of patients with burns. Original, peer-reviewed articles present the latest information on surgical procedures, acute care, reconstruction, burn prevention, and research and education. Other topics include physical therapy/occupational therapy, nutrition, current events in the evolving healthcare debate, and reports on the newest computer software for diagnostics and treatment. The Journal serves all burn care specialists, from physicians, nurses, and physical and occupational therapists to psychologists, counselors, and researchers.