Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Bias in Burn Care: A Literature Review of Ethical Challenges.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
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.

烧伤护理中的人工智能和算法偏差:伦理挑战的文献综述。
人工智能(AI)越来越多地集成到烧伤护理中,用于分类、烧伤深度评估、预后评分、疼痛管理和远程医疗支持的资源分配。这些工具有望提高效率和准确性,但也引发了关于透明度、问责制和偏见的重大伦理问题。本叙述性综述综合了2010年至2025年关于人工智能、预测建模和烧伤护理数字工具的文献,并辅以重症监护、急诊医学、放射学、皮肤病学和肿瘤学的证据。对PubMed、Embase和Scopus的系统搜索确定了报告算法开发或部署的研究,并讨论或允许对公平、公平或可解释性的推断。在整个医学领域,算法经常错误地分类种族和少数民族、社会经济弱势患者、妇女、老年人和具有复杂合并症的个体的结果,而烧伤特异性模型很少评估亚组的表现或报告的人口组成。常见的问题包括不具代表性的数据集、不透明的建模管道以及缺乏正式的偏见审计。伦理分析是碎片化的,很少以生物医学伦理或人工智能治理的既定框架为基础。本综述认为,目前的发展轨迹有可能在本已脆弱的人口中嵌入和扩大不平等。它提出了以公平为导向的设计、报告、验证和部署后监测的具体战略,强调公正、非恶意、透明度、问责制和利益相关者参与。在烧伤护理中负责任地采用人工智能将需要超越单纯的技术性能,在整个模型生命周期中明确关注公平和道德保障。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
21.40%
发文量
535
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书