Management of Burns: Multi-Center Assessment Comparing AI Models and Experienced Plastic Surgeons

<b>Background</b>: Burn injuries require accurate assessment for effective management, and artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining attention in burn care for diagnosis, treatment planning, and decision support. This study compares the effectiveness of AI-driven models with experienced plastic surgeons in burn assessment and management. <b>Methods</b>: Ten anonymized burn images of varying severity and anatomical location were selected from publicly available databases. Three AI systems (ChatGPT-4o, Claude, and Kimi AI) analyzed these images, generating clinical descriptions and management plans. Three experienced plastic surgeons reviewed the same images to establish a clinical reference standard and evaluated AI-generated recommendations using a five-point Likert scale for accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness. Statistical analyses, including Cohen's kappa coefficient, assessed inter-rater reliability and comparative accuracy. <b>Results</b>: AI models showed high diagnostic agreement with clinicians, with ChatGPT-4o achieving the highest Likert ratings. However, treatment recommendations varied in specificity, occasionally lacking individualized considerations. Readability scores indicated that AI-generated outputs were more comprehensible than the traditional medical literature, though some recommendations were overly simplistic. Cohen's kappa coefficient suggested moderate to high inter-rater agreement among human evaluators. <b>Conclusions</b>: While AI-driven models demonstrate strong diagnostic accuracy and readability, further refinements are needed to improve treatment specificity and personalization. This study highlights AI's potential as a supplementary tool in burn management while emphasizing the need for clinical oversight to ensure safe and individualized patient care.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-04-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14093078
Citations
5
Primary Topic
COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.23
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Management of Burns: Multi-Center Assessment Comparing AI Models and Experienced Plastic Surgeons

Jennifer Novo, Benjamin N. Sacks, Warren M. Rozen, Jeannette W. C. Ting et al.
5 citations
Journal of Clinical Medicine
COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
5.23
article

Management of Burns: Multi-Center Assessment Comparing AI Models and Experienced Plastic Surgeons

Jennifer Novo, Benjamin N. Sacks, Warren M. Rozen, Jeannette W. C. Ting, Ishith Seth, Gianluca Marcaccini, Roberto Cuomo, Bryan Lim
article en
5 citations

Abstract

<b>Background</b>: Burn injuries require accurate assessment for effective management, and artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining attention in burn care for diagnosis, treatment planning, and decision support. This study compares the effectiveness of AI-driven models with experienced plastic surgeons in burn assessment and management. <b>Methods</b>: Ten anonymized burn images of varying severity and anatomical location were selected from publicly available databases. Three AI systems (ChatGPT-4o, Claude, and Kimi AI) analyzed these images, generating clinical descriptions and management plans. Three experienced plastic surgeons reviewed the same images to establish a clinical reference standard and evaluated AI-generated recommendations using a five-point Likert scale for accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness. Statistical analyses, including Cohen's kappa coefficient, assessed inter-rater reliability and comparative accuracy. <b>Results</b>: AI models showed high diagnostic agreement with clinicians, with ChatGPT-4o achieving the highest Likert ratings. However, treatment recommendations varied in specificity, occasionally lacking individualized considerations. Readability scores indicated that AI-generated outputs were more comprehensible than the traditional medical literature, though some recommendations were overly simplistic. Cohen's kappa coefficient suggested moderate to high inter-rater agreement among human evaluators. <b>Conclusions</b>: While AI-driven models demonstrate strong diagnostic accuracy and readability, further refinements are needed to improve treatment specificity and personalization. This study highlights AI's potential as a supplementary tool in burn management while emphasizing the need for clinical oversight to ensure safe and individualized patient care.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 14(9)
University of Siena (IT), Prince of Wales Hospital (CN), Peninsula Health (AU), Monash University (AU), The University of Notre Dame Australia (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
5.23
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.