ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05167461AMBUSHUpdated Oct 23, 2023

AutoMated BUrn Diagnostic System for Healthcare (AMBUSH)

An observational study in Burns Multiple, Burns and Thermal Burn, sponsored by Indiana University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-10-23.

Sponsored by Indiana University · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Case-crossover
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
30
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The primary objective of this study is to develop a high accuracy and automated system that can provide early assessment of burn injuries with at least 90% accuracy in absence of burn experts, using AI and FDA cleared harmonic ultrasound TDI data based on the analysis of mechanical and hemodynamic properties of the subcutaneous burned tissue. Data collected in this study will lead to the development of better diagnostic tools that could inform clinical burn practices by enabling doctors to determine burn depth and the need for surgery with greater speed and accuracy, resulting in better clinical outcomes.

Read the detailed description

Burn injuries are considered as one of the most complex type of traumatic injuries. In the United States (US), about 1.25 million people are treated each year for burns, and 40,000 are hospitalized for the treatment of these injuries resulting in high medical costs, approximately $7.9 billion per year. Early and accurate treatment of burns is critical to prevent infections and improve the possible outcomes of the patient, decreasing the mortality rate by about 36% In this regard, prioritizing burns that require a surgical procedure to heal, i.e. burn excision and skin grafting, is critical. This constitutes a challenging task because it involves the determination of the burn depth, for which experienced burn surgeons achieve an accuracy of 67-76%, value that decreases to 50% for inexperienced surgeons. Assessment of the burn depth is one of the most important aspects of burn care. It is a predictor of pathological scarring that occurs in 30%-91% of burn injuries. However, it continues to be an open clinical challenge for which an accurate solution has yet to be found. Burns are classified into three different categories: superficial burns, which involve only epidermis; partial-thickness burns, which affect epidermis and dermis; and full-thickness burns, which include deep structures such as subcutaneous, muscles, and bone. The first two are expected to heal without scarring by 14-21 days after the burn injury, while the last one will heal with scarring resulting in significant morbidity to the patient, including pain, loss of joint mobility, loss of function, and social isolation. For this reason, full-thickness burns are excised, and exposed body parts are covered with skin grafts to prevent further complications with scarring Currently, burn depth is determined by clinical assessment, based on appearance, blanching to pressure, sensation to pin prick, and bleeding on needle prick. This visual and tactile inspection approach introduces inter-subject variability, especially when partial-thickness burns are involved. Overestimation of burn depth leads to unnecessary surgery of excision of viable skin and replacement with skin grafts that look different from surrounding skin. These grafts are less pliable with lack of the ability to sweat for thermoregulation, while underestimation leads to surgical delay, long length of hospital stays, high treatment costs, scarring, and poor functional and aesthetic outcomes. This issue is exacerbated by a phenomenon known as burn conversion, which is not fully understood yet, and it is usually not accounted for in the assessment process or in the clinical decision support technologies. Burn injury is a dynamic process, the longer the delay in intervening, the more abundant the scar tissue formation and the more likely the patient is to have deformity with loss of mobility and function. Thus, early prediction of burn conversion is critical for surgical decision making and burn follow up. Several non-invasive light-based imaging technologies have been developed to support clinical assessment, which is currently the most common technique for burn depth assessment. They operate based on the existing correlation among blood perfusion, functional blood vessels, and burn depth. However, Laser Doppler Imaging (LDI) is the only one approved by FDA. It is the most widely adopted non-invasive technology in burn treatment facilities in the US, but it is used as the preferred modality in only 6% of them. Considering the many limitations of this technology, this is not unexpected. It uses light/optic principles to detect the active blood flow in the damaged tissue of the patient, and the results can be greatly altered by the curvature of tissues, ambient light and temperature, motion artifacts, topical wound dressings, non-debrided tissue, skin color, pigment from tattoos, and blisters. In addition, LDI performance is poor when burn injuries are less than 24 hours old and can be difficult to interpret for inexperienced users. To overcome the limitations of light-based technologies, the investigators will integrate novel techniques in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Computer Vision, with FDA approved Harmonic B-mode ultrasound (HUSD B-mode) and Harmonic Ultrasound Tissue Doppler Elastography imaging (TDI), medical expertise in the wound care, tissue injury management, and burn surgery domains. This will enhance the burn assessment accuracy, improving the patient's prognosis.

02

Conditions studied

  • Burns Multiple
  • Burns
  • Thermal Burn
  • Burn Infection

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • burns
  • thermal burn
03

In context

Burns

730 studies on the registry are indexed under Burns; 146 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 30 is below the median of 58 across 134 observational studies indexed under Burns.

Browse Burns studies →

Lead sponsor

Indiana University is the lead sponsor of 982 studies on the registry; 199 are open to participants now.

Of its 148 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 117 (79%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Subjects aged 18 years and above, male and female, with a thermal burn injury will be considered for participation in this study. Enrollment of 30 subjects is planned

Eligibility criteria

Subjects must meet all the following enrollment criteria to be eligible for participation in the study:

  1. Male or female patients aged 18 years and above.
  2. The patient has a thermal burn injury
  3. Antibiotic use allowed
  4. Patient does not need to have the ability to communicate
  5. Inpatient or outpatient
  6. Within 7 days of burn
  7. No prior surgical debridement
  8. Burn ≤ 75% of body surface
  9. The patient or their legal representative agrees to comply with all compulsory study procedures and visit schedule
  10. The patient or their legal representative agrees to abstain from enrollment in any other clinical trial for the duration of the study.
  11. In the opinion of the investigator, the patient or their legal representative must be able to:

    1. Understand the full nature and purpose of the study, including possible risks and adverse events,
    2. Understand instruction, and
    3. Provide voluntary informed written consent/assent as appropriate for study participation.

Exclusion Criteria: Subjects who meet any of the following criteria are not eligible for participation in the study:

  1. Unable to provide informed consent
  2. Age \<18 years
  3. Burn ≥ 75% of body surface
  4. Burns caused by chemicals, electricity or radiation.
  5. Patients presenting with only 3rd-degree/full-thickness wounds which require immediate autografting.
  6. Burn injury has had prior surgical treatment.
  7. Prisoners
  8. Pregnant individuals
  9. Unable to follow study schedule or understand study instructions
05

Study design

Observational model
Case-crossover
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
30 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No
Biospecimen retention
Samples with dna

Interventions

  • OtherCollection of imaging by ultrasonography

    The investigators will collect burn image data to be processed through the software combined with the deep machine learning to find automated diagnostic burn assessment with accuracy of \>95% compared to human assessment

    Also known as: deep machine learning

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Compare human assessment of burn depth to AI assessment

    Compare human assessment of burn depth to the technology output (Artificial Intelligence and TDI) as determined by need for surgery (time points include day 0 +/- 3 days). Biopsy collected from patients that go to OR (one-time collection) to verify the burn depth via histological analysis.

    Time frame: 2 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. Confirm burn conversion

    : Confirm burn conversion by the presence of infection as found in the electronic medical record (EMR). Confirm burn infection by sending one tissue biopsy from OR (one-time collection)

    Time frame: 2 years

Other outcomes

  1. Evaluate burn software accuracy

    Survey software evaluators - who are medical providers, residents, and medical students. The tertiary aim will be designed and conducted after the primary and secondary aims have completed, and that the protocol will be amended to include this design and all necessary elements at that time. The tertiary aim was presented to show how additional validity surrounding the ease of use and understanding of results produced by the program in real life situations will be established.

    Time frame: 2 yrs

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Eskenazi Health
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Rahman MM, Masry ME, Gnyawali SC, Xue Y, Gordillo G, Wachs JP. AI-Driven Integrated System for Burn Depth Prediction With Electronic Medical Records: Algorithm Development and Validation. JMIR Med Inform. 2025 Aug 15;13:e68366. doi: 10.2196/68366. PubMed 40815778 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — We will share the artificial intelligence data regarding how the AI performed in comparison to the human evaluators

Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form

Time frame: 1 yr after all data collected until 3 yrs after study results

Access criteria: via email from statistician

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from May 2022 to primary completion in May 2023, 12 months.

Of 47 non-industry observational studies under Burns, half reached primary completion within 22 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 10 and three quarters within 51. This study's 12 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 54 studies reached it within 22 months; a quarter within 10 and three quarters within 52.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Nov 5, 2021
First posted
Dec 22, 2021
StartActual
May 24, 2022
Primary completionActual
May 25, 2023
CompletionActual
May 25, 2023
Last update
Oct 23, 2023
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 23, 2023, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05167461
Lead sponsor
Indiana University
Collaborators
Eskenazi Health
Responsible party
Gayle Gordillo (Professor of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Dec 22, 2021
Start date
May 24, 2022
Primary completion
May 25, 2023
Completion
May 25, 2023
Last update
Oct 23, 2023

Study contacts

Gayle Gordillo, MD
principal investigator · Indiana University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion