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

Clicks: 3
ID: 318588
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #45 of 71 articles by views in journal of burn care & research : official publication of the american burn association

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
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.
Reference Key
openalex_W7165782776 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Joshua Khorsandi, Abu-Bakr Ahmed, Jason Mirharooni, Michael Kahen, Joshua Ahdout, Demitri Franzoni, Joshua MacDavid
Journal journal of burn care & research : official publication of the american burn association
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jbcr/irag105
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irag105
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.