Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40510430›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025

Diagnostic Accuracy of Microsoft's Copilot Artificial Intelligence in Chronic Wound Assessment: A Comparative Study.

Kirollos Tadrousse, Catherine A Cash, Madhulika R Kastury, Noelle Thompson, Richard Simman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kirollos TadrousseFrom the College of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.
Catherine A CashFrom the College of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.
Madhulika R KasturyFrom the College of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.
Noelle ThompsonFrom the College of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.
Richard SimmanDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Chronic wounds affect approximately 2.5% of the US population and can cause severe complications if not identified and treated promptly. Artificial intelligence tools such as Microsoft's Copilot have the potential to expedite diagnosis, but their clinical diagnostic accuracy remains underexplored. Methods: Ten chronic wound cases were selected from the publicly available database of the Silesian University of Technology. Images and demographic data were entered into Copilot, which generated the top 3 differential diagnoses for each case. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using a predefined scoring system. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, bootstrapping, the Fisher-Pitman permutation test, Cohen kappa, and Fisher exact test. Results: Copilot correctly identified the primary diagnosis in 30% of cases and included the correct diagnosis within its top 3 differentials in 70% of cases. The mean diagnostic score was 1.7 (median: 2, SD: 1.25, variance: 1.57). The Wilcoxon test indicated no significant deviation from the median reference value ( Conclusions: Microsoft Copilot demonstrated limited diagnostic accuracy in chronic wound assessment, underscoring the need for cautious integration into clinical workflows. Broader datasets and more rigorous validation are crucial for enhancing artificial intelligence-supported diagnostics in wound care.

Identifiers

PMID40510430
PMCPMC12160731

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.