In Silico and Bioengineered Innovations in Wound Healing: Toward Personalized and Predictive Therapeutic Strategies

Abstract

Severe and chronic wounds pose significant clinical, social, and economic challenges due to persistent inflammation, impaired tissue regeneration, and infection risks. Traditional wound management methods, such as dressings, debridement, and autografts, often fail to provide adequate healing for complex wounds. Advances in biomedical science have introduced innovative approaches including bioengineered skin substitutes, nanotherapeutics, stem cell therapy, and 3D bioprinting, which enhance tissue repair and reduce complications. Among these, bioengineered skin grafts offer major advantages by eliminating donor site morbidity, promoting angiogenesis, accelerating healing, and minimizing infection and scarring. Despite these innovations, wound healing remains influenced by several local and systemic factors such as hypoxia, diabetes, infection, poor nutrition, and aging. Recently, computational and mathematical models have emerged as valuable tools to simulate biological mechanisms, predict healing outcomes, and design personalized therapies. These in silico models integrate molecular, cellular, and tissue-level data to analyze healing dynamics, identify therapeutic targets, and optimize treatment strategies while reducing experimental burden. The integration of in silico and experimental data bridges the gap between laboratory research and clinical practice, paving the way for precision and predictive wound care. Although challenges such as biological complexity, limited data standardization, and clinical validation persist, continued advancements in artificial intelligence and computational modeling hold immense translational potential. Collectively, these approaches represent a paradigm shift in wound care—from empirical treatments to data-driven, personalized, and efficient healing strategies.

Keywords

Introduction

Severe and complicated wounds create a significant clinical, socio and economic challenges which provides an opportunity for advancements of wound healing ideas. Previously wound healing concepts like dressings autografts and debridement were never enough in serious wounds. Chronic wound includes persistent inflammation, impaired tissue regeneration and huge risk of infections. Chronic and complex wounds present a significant clinical and socioeconomic challenge, requiring the development of advanced wound healing strategies^1,2. Traditional wound care methods includes dressings, debridement and autografts which are often not enough for chronic wounds, which are characterized by persistent inflammation, impaired tissue regeneration, and a high risk of infection. Wounds not only reduce patient’s quality of life but also enforce a substantial financial burden on healthcare systems, with the global wound care market projected to grow from $12 billion in 2020 to nearly $19 billion by 2027 ^3,4,.

Issues such as limited donor sites for grafts, risk of hypertrophic scarring, and repeated surgical interventions further complicate management. Recently innovative therapies such as nanotherapeutics, stem cell therapy, bioengineered skin substitutes, and 3D bioprinting are introduced which targets specific biological pathways, enhance tissue regeneration, and minimize complications⁵. Methods like advanced dressings and hydrogels are also designed to control inflammation, control exudate, and create optimal healing environments⁶.

Inspite of these innovations, the management of chronic wounds remains challenging due to factors such as patient variability, comorbidities, and the need for personalized treatment plans. Due to which there is an increased need for continued research and the integration of advanced, cost-effective, and non-invasive therapies to improve wound healing outcomes and reduce the burden on patients and healthcare systems^7,8.

2. Overview of Wound Healing: Biological and Pathological Mechanisms

Bioengineered skin grafts accelerate healing more than traditional methods in several ways:

2.1. Elimination of Donor Site Morbidity: Classical autologous skin grafts require harvesting skin from another part of the patient’s body, leading to additional wounds and potential complications at the donor site. In vitro produced bioengineered skin grafts do not require donor tissue which reduces patient morbidity⁹.

2.2. Enhanced Tissue Regeneration and Integration: Bioengineered grafts are capable of being customized with growth factors, cytokines, and extracellular matrix (ECM) components such as collagen, fibronectin, and laminin those elements provide both structural support and biochemical cues which promote new blood vessel formation (angiogenesis), guide cell behavior and facilitate better integration with the host tissue¹⁰.

2.3. Accelerated and Improved Healing: Numerous bioengineered skin substitutes are designed to mimic the structure and function of native skin which supports the growth of the patient’s own skin cells. They promote rapid wound closure, reduce fluid loss, and create an optimal environment for re-epithelialization and tissue repair. For example, Apligraf and Biobrane have faster healing and reduced hospital stays in clinical studies^11,12.

2.4. Reduced Risk of Complications: Since bioengineered grafts are manufactured under controlled conditions and can be designed less immunogenic, they frequently result in fewer complications such as infection, graft rejection, and hypertrophic scarring compared to traditional grafts¹³.

2.5. Improved Quality of Life:  Bioengineered skin grafts diminishes symptoms, increase patient comfort, and improve overall quality of life for individuals with chronic wounds¹⁴.

In conclusion, bioengineered skin grafts offers notable advantages over traditional methods by diminishing the need for donor sites, improving tissue regeneration, accelerating healing, reducing complications, and improving outcomes of patients.

3. Causes of Impaired Wound Healing and Clinical Challenges

3.1. Key Factors Responsible for Impaired Wound Healing

3.1.1. Local Factors

3.1.1.1. Oxygenation: Sufficient oxygen is crucial for both cellular metabolism and collagen production. Hypoxia, usually resulting from inadequate perfusion or venous insufficiency, delays wound healing by raising oxidative stress levels and promoting inflammation¹⁵.

3.1.1.2. Infection: Bacterial contamination slows the healing process because the body focuses on combating infection instead of repairing tissue. Infected wounds exhibit greater inflammation, tissue damage, and an increased risk of becoming chronic¹⁶.

3.1.1.3. Foreign Bodies and Repetitive Trauma: Foreign material or repeated trauma can sustain inflammation and interfere with the healing process¹⁶.

3.1.1.4. Venous Insufficiency: Impaired venous return causes edema and limits nutrient supply, which further delays tissue repair¹⁶.

3.1.2. Systemic Factors

3.1.2.1. Diabetes Mellitus: Diabetes is a leading cause of chronic wounds, particularly diabetic foot ulcers. Elevated blood glucose impairs immune cell activity, decreases angiogenesis, raises oxidative stress, and promotes the formation of advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), all of which hinder healing. Diabetic wounds also have elevated protease levels that break down new tissue and are affected by neuropathy, which lowers protective sensation and weakens the immune response^16,17.

3.1.2.2. Age: Healing in elderly individuals is delayed due to lower rates of cell growth, reduced new blood vessel formation, and other coexisting health conditions^18,19.

3.1.2.3. Chronic Illnesses: Conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and immune disorders reduce blood flow, hinder nutrient supply, and weaken immune responses, all of which contribute to slower healing^18,20.

3.1.2.4. Poor Nutrition: Deficiency of protein, vitamin C, zinc, and essential fatty acids hampers collagen formation and immune response, causing healing to be slower or inadequate^21,22.

3.1.2.5. Medications: Medications such as steroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and chemotherapy agents suppress inflammation and cellular proliferation, which hinders tissue repair^23,24.

3.1.2.6. Smoking and Alcohol Use: Nicotine causes blood vessel constriction, which lowers oxygen transport, and alcohol impairs both immune response and nutrient absorption^25,26.

3.1.2.7. Stress and Hormonal Imbalances: Psychological stress and changes in sex hormones (like lowered estrogen) can adversely impact the healing process by increasing inflammation and decreasing cellular activity^27,28.

3.2. Clinical Challenges

3.2.1. Chronic Wounds: Chronic wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers and pressure sores, are challenging to treat because of ongoing inflammation, infection, and inadequate blood supply. Such wounds are at high risk for complications like infection, tissue death, and possible amputation^1,2.

3.2.2. Patient Variability: Age, comorbidities, nutritional status, and lifestyle differences add complexity to treatment and demand tailored approaches^29,30.

3.2.3. Recurrent Infections: Chronic wounds with persistent or recurring infections may develop antibiotic resistance, which delays healing even more³¹.

3.2.4. Resource-Intensive Care: Effective management typically demands multidisciplinary teams, specialized wound care products, and extended treatment periods, all of which raise healthcare costs and burden^32,33.

In summary, impaired wound healing arises from a mix of local and systemic factors — including hypoxia, infection, diabetes, poor nutrition, and chronic diseases — that interfere with normal repair and pose major clinical challenges in both acute and chronic care^3,33.

4. Progress and Applications of Computational and Mathematical Models for Wound Healing

Mathematical and computational models are now vital tools for exploring the complex biological mechanisms of wound healing, providing insights that are often hard to gain through experiments alone^34;35.

5. Advances in Mathematical Modeling of Wound Healing

5.1. EarlyModels: Initial models relied on basic reaction-diffusion equations to capture cell movement and growth at the wound area, providing a basis for simulating wound healing and fundamental tissue repair kinetics³⁶.

5.2. Multiscale and Hybrid Models: During the past decades, modeling has expanded to encompass different biological scales, from molecular pathways to tissue-level interactions. Hybrid multiscale models, for example, link discrete cell-based representations with continuum models of tissues and biochemical gradients, allowing researchers to study cellular processes in the context of the overall wound environment^37,38.

5.3. Mechanistic and Predictive Modeling: Modern modeling approaches include complex mechanisms like angiogenesis, extracellular matrix remodeling, and inflammation. For instance, today’s mathematical models can simulate oxygen dynamics, growth factors (such as PDGF and VEGF), immune cell migration, and fibroblast functions, enabling predictions of wound closure in normal and diseased states like ischemia³⁹.

6. Applications and Impact

6.1. Insight into Biological Mechanisms:

The roles of cell migration, proliferation, angiogenesis, and inflammatory responses can be clarified with the help of mathematical models in wound healing. Through simulating these processes, Models can identify critical factors that influence healing outcomes and suggest potential therapeutic targets^40,41.

6.2. Prediction and Optimization:

The predictive capability of computational simulations to estimate wound closure rates and predict healing times helps clinicians to evaluate treatment strategies⁴², designing personalized interventions and managing patient expectations.

6.3. Treatment Strategy Design:

Different models are used to test the efficacy of new therapies such as growth factor delivery, engineered scaffolds which further helps in optimizing various treatment parameters before clinical trials. Which can help simulate impaired healing, such as in diabetic or ischemic wounds, and suggest interventions to improve outcomes⁴³.

6.4.Reduction of Experimental Burden:

Generating theoretical predictions, mathematical models helps reduce the need of time consuming and costly animal or human experiments which also provide a framework for integrating clinical and experimental data⁴⁴ which helps in enhancing overall understanding of wound healing dynamics.

Mathematical and computational models are now integral for both basic research as well as development of new clinical strategies, providing predictive power and mechanistic insights⁴⁵ which has advanced from simple equations describing cell movement to more sophisticated multiscale framework that simulate the interplay of cellular, molecular, and tissue level processes in wound healing⁴³ .

7. Simulation of Impaired Healing Processes: Insights from In Silico Studies

Various insilico studies have become an invaluable tool for simulating impaired wound healing process which offers mechanistic insights and guides the development of various targeted therapies⁴⁶. Computational models help in replicating biological complexities of chronic wounds offering researchers to investigate various causes of impaired healing and virtually test potential interventions⁴⁰.

7.1. Key Insights from In Silico Studies

7.1.1. Modeling Pathogenic Mechanisms

In silico models have been employed to simulate the molecular and cellular disruptions observed in impaired healing, such as those in diabetic wounds. For example, pathogenic markers (e.g., nuclear localization of β-catenin and upregulation of c-myc) which are related with prolonged wound healing. These models also helps in tracking the dysregulation of various essential pathways, such as  Wnt/β-catenin and TGF-β signaling, which are crucial for repair of tissue and regeneration^47,48.

7.1.2. Simulation of Chronic Inflammation

Chronic wounds can be depicted by continuous inflammation, excessive production of pro-inflammatory cytokines like IL-1β, TNF-α and increased protease activity, which leads to extracellular matrix degradation⁴⁹. In silico simulations can model these processes, revealing how prolonged inflammatory responses and ECM destruction disrupt normal healing and contribute to chronic wound pathology⁵⁰.

 7.1.3. Target Identification and Drug Screening

Computational approaches like molecular docking and dynamics simulations enables the identification of various compounds which might modulate impaired pathways. For example: In silico screening has been used to detect natural compounds that inhibit GSK3-β, thereby restoring the balance in the Wnt/β-catenin pathway and promoting tissue repair⁵¹.

7.1.4. Therapeutic Scenario Testing

Advanced mathematical models helps in predicting impact of growth factor delivery, anti-inflammatory agents or novel biomaterials in impaired healing, which helps in optimizing treatment for chronic wounds⁵². It also allows researchers to represent various therapeutic interventions in silico before shifting to clinical trials.

7.1.5. Patient Specificity and Variability

Nowadays in silico models are capable of incorporating patient-specific data like genetic, metabolic, and physiological differences, to simulate responses of healing⁵³.Therefore helps to understand why some patients experience impaired healing and also helps in designing personalized therapies.

8. Clinical and Research Applications

8.1. Reduction of Experimental Burden

In silico models helps in simulating impaired healing and testing interventions virtually thereby reducing the ned for broad animal or human experiments which accelerates the discovery of successful treatments⁵⁴.

8.2. Mechanistic Understanding

These replication provide a platform for dissecting the interplay between inflammation, cell proliferation, ECM remodeling, and angiogenesis under impaired conditions, which offers a thorough understanding of chronic wound pathophysiology⁵⁵.

9. Identification of Therapeutic Targets Using Computational Approaches.

Computational approaches have revolutionized the identification of therapeutic targets, and have accelerated the drug discovery process. These methods make use of high-throughput biological data, molecular modeling, and advanced algorithms and helps in predicting and validating drug-target interactions smoothly and with high precision⁵⁶.

9.1. Structure-based computational methods

Molecular docking and virtual screening helps researchers to figure out the protein targets of bioactive compounds by modeling their interactions at the atomic level. For example, the IVS (In silico Validation System) approach can validate observed drug effects as well as side effects, ultimately helps to uncover new therapeutic strategies and repurpose existing drugs^57,58.

9.2. Network-based and omics-driven approaches

It uses data from genomics, proteomics, and transcriptomics to map out molecular interactions within cells. This model can identify potential drug targets and elucidate mechanisms of action for new and existing compounds by assessing protein-protein interaction and integrating pharmacological data⁵⁹. For example, drugs with similar gene expression signatures or side effect profiles may share common targets, which can be predicted using supervised learning and network analysis⁶⁰.

9.3. Machine learning and high-performance computing

These technologies are capable to discovery novel targets that may not be apparent through traditional experimental methods, supporting the development of precision medicine and personalized therapies⁵⁶.

In summary, computational approaches—ranging from structure-based modeling to network analysis and machine learning have become indispensable for identifying therapeutic targets, offering a fast and cost-effective alternative to traditional laboratory screening⁶¹.

9.4. Integration of Experimental and In Silico Models: Bridging the Gap

Experimental and in silico models is revolutionizing wound healing research by narrowing the gap between laboratory findings and computational predictions. This synergy leverages the strengths of both approaches and provides a more comprehensive understanding of wound healing dynamics as well as accelerates the development of effective therapies⁶².

Experimental models like in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo provides essential biological data and validation for computational models, while in silico models offers the ability of simulating complex scenarios, predict outcomes, and identify mechanisms that may be difficult to test via experiments⁶².

Model Development and Validation:

Computational models are often built using data such as cell migration rates, cytokine levels, and tissue responses. These models can then be refined and validated by comparing their predictions with new experimental results, creating a feedback loop which improves both model accuracy and experimental design⁶³.

Mechanistic Understanding:

Comprehensive approaches allows researchers to dissect the roles of specific cell types, signaling pathways and molecular events in wound healing. For example, agent-based models have been used to simulate immune cell dynamics in burn wounds, incorporating experimental data from animal models to validate the predicted inflammatory response and cell transitions⁶⁴.

Therapeutic Strategy Design:

By combining experimental and in silico data, researchers can test the impacts of new drugs, biomaterials, interventions virtually before moving to animal or human trials. This approach enables the simulation of impaired healing scenarios, optimize treatment parameters, and identify potential therapeutic targets⁶⁵.

Personalization and Prediction:

Integrated models can incorporate patient-specific experimental data, like genetic or metabolic profiles, to replicate individualized healing responses and forecast clinical outcomes, facilitating personalized wound care⁶⁶.

10.Challenges and Future Directions

10.1. Data Availability and Standardization:

The precision of combined models depends on the quality and completeness of experimental data. Limitations in longitudinal and spatial data acquisition may restrict model validation and predictive power.

10.2. Continuous Model Improvement:

As new experimental data emerges, computational models can be updated and refined, creating a dynamic, learning system that evolves with advancements in both experimental as well as computational methods⁶⁷.

11.Limitations and Future Directions in In Silico Wound Healing Research

11.1. Limitations

11.1.1. Biological Complexity and Model Simplification: In silico models requires simplifications to make computations manageable. Previously mathematical and computational models of wound healing focused on a limited number of variables which were not fully capable to grasp biological complexity of real wounds like cellular heterogeneity, dynamic tissue remodeling, and multifactorial influences⁶⁸.

11.1.2. Data Availability and Calibration: Accurate representation depends on high-quality, quantitative biological data for model calibration and validation. However, many critical parameters—such as concentrations of cytokines, growth factors, or local tissue properties are difficult to measure noninvasively and vary significantly between individuals and wound types. Which might limit predictive accuracy and generalizability of current models^69,70.

11.1.3. Patient-Specific Variability: Agent-based models (ABMs) and combined strategies can be standardized for individual patients, varied wound etiology, patient underlying illness, and healing trajectories causes a challenge for developing universally applicable models. Personalized predictions require widespread patient-specific data, which may not always be present⁷¹.

11.1.4. Computational and Technical Challenges: Computational demands raises as models become more detailed and tissue-realistic. High-resolution agent-based require significant processing power and specialized software, that could constrain accessibility and flexibility for routine clinical use⁵⁵.

11.1.5. Integration with Clinical Practice: Connecting the gap between simulated results and clinical decision-making is still emerging. Need for standardized protocols to integrate model predictions with clinical imaging, wound assessment, and treatment planning increases⁷².

12. Future Directions

12.1. Increasing Biological Realism: Future models aims to incorporate cellular stress generation, vascular growth, and immune responses, to better mimic the wound healing environment. Advancements of imaging and molecular profiling will support the integration of more comprehensive datasets⁵⁴.

12.2. Personalized and Predictive Modeling: Development of models which can be calibrated to individual patients, using clinical imaging, blood flow measurements, and genetic or metabolic data, is a key goal. This enables personalized risk prediction, diagnostics, and therapy optimization⁷³.

12.3. Integration with Artificial Intelligence (AI): AI as well as machine learning helps in improving wound assessment, systemize image analysis, and improve the predictive power of computational models. However, these approaches require large, diverse datasets for training and validation, and careful management of data bias and quality⁷⁴.

12.4. Translational and Clinical Applications: Next parameter is the seamless integration of in silico models with clinical workflows, enabling simulation-guided treatment planning, real-time decision support, and also allowing continuous model refinement based on new experimental data and patient outcomes⁷².

12.5. Bridging Experimental and Computational Approaches: Current attempts focus on connecting simulation outputs with clinical images and experimental data, using machine learning and image analysis to extract features that correlate with healing outcomes⁷⁵ which helps identify new therapeutic targets and diagnostic indicators.

“We are now embarking on exploring the potential for personalized medicine of mechanistic computational modeling. Specially, the agent-based approach could permit delineation among subjects who have different wound-healing trajectories. Soon we may use the output of mechanistic simulations as a guide to understand a given patient's wound-healing path and, ideally, treat that patient based on model forecast.”

In conclusion, challenges are faced during in silico wound healing research related to biological complexity, data availability, and clinical integration, continuous advances in modeling, data acquisition, and AI are prepared to create these tools increasingly valuable for personalized, predictive, and translational wound care⁷⁶.

13. Translational Potential: From Computational Models to Clinical Practice

Translational potential of computational models in wound healing lies in their capacity to bring together the gap between research and real-world patient care. These models are able to synthesize complex biological, clinical, and imaging data to generate actionable insights for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment planning.

13.1.Key Aspects of Translational Potential^77,78

13.1.Clinical Decision Support: Computational models, like those powered by machine learning and deep learning, are progressively used as clinical-decision support systems which can analyze large, heterogeneous datasets to identify patterns, predict outcomes, and assist clinicians in making more informed choice about diagnosis and therapy. For example, machine learning models have been successfully implemented in radiology, pathology, and intensive care to predict patient risk, automate image analysis, as well as guide treatment adjustments.

13.2. Personalized: Integrating patient-specific data like genomics, metabolomics, and imaging—computational models permits the development of personalized risk scores and tailored treatment plans. For example: Polygenic risk scores derived from genome-wide association studies.

13.3. Simulation of Clinical Scenarios: Computational models are able to reproduce various clinical scenarios, including virtual clinical trials and hypothesis testing before actual implementation in patients. Which reduces the need for extensive animal or human studies and accelerates the translation of new therapies.

13.4. Model Validation and Uncertainty Quantification: Clinical translation to be successful, it is essential that computational models provide transparent predictions, disclose their confidence levels, and openly discuss underlying assumptions and uncertainties that builds trust amongst clinicians and ensures that models are used responsibly, avoiding misapplication⁷⁹.

13.5. Challenges and Safeguards: Clinical adoption of computational models faces challenges like data quality, model explainability, and potential biases. Validation against community standards, and continuous monitoring are important to assure models remain accurate and equitable across diverse patient populations.⁸⁰

DISCUSSION

In silico studies have appeared as a revolutionary tool in the field of wound healing, particularly in understanding the complex disruptions which lead to chronic wounds. These models mimic complex biological processes like inflammation, angiogenesis, reepithelialization, and extracellular matrix remodeling, providing insights into how these processes deviate in pathological states. Combining omics data, patient-specific variables, and clinical observations, computational platforms facilitates high-throughput screening of potential therapeutic targets and simulate the effects of various interventions in silico before progressing to costly and time-consuming experimental trials which not only accelerates the drug development process but also enhances the precision of clinical decision-making the symbiotic relationship between integration of experimental data along with computational modelling creates a feedback loop where in vivo and invitro findings inform model refinement and vice versa. This relationship boosts our understanding of wound biology. Furthermore, in silico models support the development of personalized treatment strategies by incorporating individual patient parameters, such as age, comorbidities, and genetic background, thereby advancing the field toward precision medicine. However, despite the vast potential, the clinical adoption of computational models hinges on several critical factors like availability of high-quality, standardized dataset robustness and transparency of the model and their seamless integration into clinical workflows.

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, in silico modeling act as a connecting link between theoretical prediction and clinical practice, offering a ethical, cost effective and scalable approach for improving wound treatment. By integrating data-driven insights with experimental validation, these models can foster innovation in therapeutic strategies, and ultimately reduce time for treatment, and improve patient output in the management of reduced wound healing.

REFERENCE

1. Nunan R, Harding KG, Martin P. Clinical challenges of chronic wounds: searching for an optimal animal model to recapitulate their complexity. Dis Model Mech. 2014 Apr;7(11):1205–13.
2. Sen CK. Human wounds and its burden: an updated compendium of estimates. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2019 Feb 1;8(2):39–48.
3. Frykberg RG, Banks J. Challenges in the treatment of chronic wounds. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2015 Sep 1;4(9):560–82.
4. Akbari F, Azadbakht M, Bagheri A, Vahedi L. In silico, in vitro, and in vivo wound healing activity of Astragalus microcephalus Willd. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2022;2022:2156629. doi:10.1155/2022/2156629.
5. Xu HL, Chen PP, ZhuGe DL, Jin BH, Shen BX, Xiao J, et al. Advanced strategies for stem cell-based wound healing. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2020 Jan;10(4):442–60.
6. Choi SM, Kim YJ. 3D bioprinting of skin: a state-of-the-art update on strategies, recent studies, and future perspectives. J Tissue Eng. 2021 Apr;12:20417314211028574.
7. Martinengo L, Olsson M, Bajpai R, Soljak M, Upton Z, Schmidtchen A, et al. Prevalence of chronic wounds in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2019 Aug;29:8–15.
8. Wilkinson HN, Hardman MJ. Wound healing: Cellular mechanisms and pathological outcomes. Open Biol. 2020;10(9):200223. doi:10.1098/rsob.200223.
9. Branski LK, Herndon DN, Pereira C, Mlcak RP, Celis MM, Lee JO, et al. Longitudinal assessment of Integra in primary burn management: a randomized pediatric clinical trial. Crit Care Med. 2007 Nov;35(11):2615–23.
10. Supp DM, Boyce ST. Engineered skin substitutes: practices and potentials. Clin Dermatol. 2005 Jul–Aug;23(4):403–12.
11. Falanga V, Sabolinski M. A bilayered living skin construct (Apligraf) accelerates complete closure of hard-to-heal venous ulcers. Wound Repair Regen. 1999 May–Jun;7(4):201–7.
12. Still J, Glat P, Silverstein P, Mozingo D. The use of a synthetic skin substitute (Biobrane) in the treatment of partial-thickness burns in children: a retrospective study. Burns. 2003 Jun;29(4):409–12.
13. Shevchenko RV, James SL, James SE. A review of tissue-engineered skin bioconstructs available for skin reconstruction. J R Soc Interface. 2010 Jun;7(43):229–58.
14. Geris, L., Schugart, R., & Van Oosterwyck, H. (2010). In silico design of treatment strategies in wound healing and bone fracture healing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1921), 2683–2706.
15. Tandara AA, Mustoe TA. Oxygen in wound healing—more than a nutrient. World J Surg. 2004 Mar;28(3):294–300.
16. Guo S, DiPietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res. 2010 Mar;89(3):219–29.
17. Brem H, Tomic-Canic M. Cellular and molecular basis of wound healing in diabetes. J Clin Invest. 2007 May;117(5):1219–22.
18. Gosain A, DiPietro LA. Aging and wound healing. World J Surg. 2004 Mar;28(3):321–6.
19. Swift ME, Burns AL, Gray KL, DiPietro LA. Age-related alterations in the inflammatory response to dermal injury. J Invest Dermatol. 2001 Jan;117(5):1027–35
20. Pierpont YN, Dinh TP, Salas RE, Johnson EL, Wright TG, Robson MC, et al. Obesity and surgical wound healing: a current review. ISRN Obes. 2014 Mar;2014:638936.
21. Stechmiller JK. Understanding the role of nutrition and wound healing. Nutr Clin Pract. 2010 Feb;25(1):61–8.
22. Wild T, Rahbarnia A, Kellner M, Sobotka L, Eberlein T. Basics in nutrition and wound healing. Nutrition. 2010 Jul–Aug;26(9):862–6.
23. Guo L, DiPietro LA. Effects of steroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents on wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 2009 Nov–Dec;17(6):566–71.
24. Tuffaha SH, Sarhane KA, Mundinger GS, Broyles JM, Mithani SK, Abdullah A, et al. Chemotherapeutic agents and their effects on wound healing. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Dec;132(6):1461–70.
25. Sorensen LT. Wound healing and infection in surgery: the pathophysiological impact of smoking, smoking cessation, and nicotine replacement therapy: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2012 Jun;255(6):1069–79.
26. Radek KA, Ranzer MJ, DiPietro LA. Alcohol delays wound closure by inhibiting epidermal proliferation and promoting apoptosis of keratinocytes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2009 Dec;33(12):2115–23.
27. Rojas IG, Padgett DA, Sheridan JF, Marucha PT. Stress-induced susceptibility to bacterial infection during cutaneous wound healing. Brain Behav Immun. 2002 Feb;16(1):74–84.
28. Ashcroft GS, Horan MA, Ferguson MW. The effects of estrogen on wound healing: a potential therapeutic agent. Arch Dermatol Res. 1997 Mar;289(3):125–32.
29. Gould LJ, Davidson JM. Chronic wound repair and healing in older adults: current status and future research. Wound Repair Regen. 2015 May;23(3):310–6.
30. Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O, Franz C, Song P, Yamin CK, et al. Health care–associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Dec 9;173(22):2039–46.
31. Lipsky BA, Hoey C. Topical antimicrobial therapy for treating chronic wounds. Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Aug 15;49(10):1541–9.
32. Sood A, Granick MS, Tomaselli NL. Wound dressings and comparative effectiveness data. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2014 Aug;3(8):511–29.
33. Järbrink K, Ni G, Sönnergren H, Schmidtchen A, Pang C, Bajpai R, et al. The humanistic and economic burden of chronic wounds: a systematic review. Wound Repair Regen. 2017 Nov;25(5):767–75.
34. Olsen L, Maini PK, Sherratt JA, Dallon JC. Mathematical modelling of anisotropy in biological tissue growth. Math Biosci Eng. 2009 Apr;6(3):469–88.
35. Cumming, B. D., McElwain, D. L. S., & Upton, Z. (2009). A mathematical model of wound healing and subsequent scarring. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 7(42), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2008.0536
36. Dale PD, Sherratt JA, Maini PK. Mathematical modelling of corneal epithelial wound healing. Math Biosci. 1994;124(2):127–47.
37. Wang Y, Guerrero Juarez CF, Qiu Y, Du H, Chen W, Figueroa S, Plikus MV, Nie Q. A multiscale hybrid mathematical model of epidermal dermal interactions during skin wound healing. Exp Dermatol. 2019 Apr;28(4):493–502.
38. Xue C, Friedman A, Sen CK. A mathematical model of ischemic cutaneous wounds. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(39):16782–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0909115106.
39. Cumming BD, McElwain DLS, Upton Z. A mathematical model of wound healing and subsequent scarring. J R Soc Interface. 2009;7(42):19–34. doi:10.1098/rsif.2008.0536.
40. Menon SN, Vamanan K, Menon J. A computational model of the inflammatory phase in wound healing. J Theor Biol. 2012 Nov;311:13–23.
41. Nagaraja S, Zurakowski D, Vodovotz Y, Banerjee K. Predictive approach identifies molecular targets and interventions to restore angiogenesis in wounds with delayed healing. J Clin Invest. 2018;128(4):1641–54.
42. Peirce SM, Skalak TC, Rodeheaver GT. Ischemia-reperfusion injury in chronic pressure ulcer formation: a skin model in the rat. Wound Repair Regen. 2000 Jan;8(1):68–76
43. Tranquillo RT, Murray JD, Zimmerman JB. Continuum model of fibroblast-driven wound contraction: inflammation-mediation and viscoelastic effects. J Theor Biol. 1988 Nov;132(2):167–75.
44. DiMascio D, Sameni R, Thampy R, Glaser AA, Katz AB, Gholami S, et al. Role of systems biology in wound healing and regenerative medicine. Wound Repair Regen. 2020 Jul;28(4):452–60.
45. Murphy CJ, Thomasy SM, Iordanov V, Raftery M, Panitch A. Computational approaches for mechanobiology and healing across scales. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2018 Dec;24(6):472–84.
46. Balachandran A, Choi SB, Morak-M?odawska B, Jele? M, Froemming GRA, Lavilla CA Jr, et al. Antioxidant, wound healing potential and in silico assessment of naringin, eicosane and octacosane. Molecules. 2023;28(3):1043. doi:10.3390/molecules28031043.
47. Lee J, Kim H, Kim K, Park J, Lee Y, Lee H, et al. Computational modeling of impaired wound healing in diabetes: a focus on the role of β-catenin and c-Myc. Biomed Eng Online. 2018;17(1):123
48. Saez A, Herrero MA, Escudero LM. Modeling and simulation of the role of TGF-β in cutaneous wound healing. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171554.
49. Forman CJ, Doyle AD, Petrie RJ, Yamada KM. Mathematical modeling of chronic inflammation dynamics in wound healing. Math Med Biol. 2019;36(3):309–28.
50. Mi Q, DiPietro LA, Elster EA, Vodovotz Y. In silico modeling of inflammation and wound healing: mechanisms and clinical applications. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2013;41(1):1–18.
51. Xu Z, Peng H, Chen J, Hu Y, Yang G, He Y, et al. In silico identification of natural compounds as inhibitors of GSK3-β to promote wound healing. J Ethnopharmacol. 2020;259:112961.
52. Wang Q, Wang L, Li Y, Li J, Wang X, Zhang X. Computational simulation of growth factor delivery from wound dressings and its influence on healing outcomes. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2019;13(6):899–909.
53. Gómez H, Mostaghimi P, Vega R, García-Aznar JM. Patient-specific modeling for wound healing under ischemic conditions. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2022;38(1):e3554.
54. Flegg JA, Menon SN, Maini PK, McElwain DLS. On the mathematical modeling of wound healing angiogenesis in skin as a reaction-transport process. Front Physiol. 2015;6:262.
55. Rocha HL, Mathews S, Valero C, García-Aznar JM. Understanding chronic wound healing using computational and systems biology approaches. Wound Repair Regen. 2021;29(3):365–78.
56. Bender A, Cortés-Ciriano I. Artificial intelligence in drug discovery: what is realistic, what are illusions? Part 1: ways to make an impact, and why we are not there yet. Drug Discov Today. 2021;26(2):511–24.
57. Meng XY, Zhang HX, Mezei M, Cui M. Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des. 2011;7(2):146–57.
58. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Furumichi M, Tanabe M, Hirakawa M. KEGG for representation and analysis of molecular networks involving diseases and drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38(Database issue):D355–60.
59. Zeng X, Zhu S, Liu X, Zhou Y, Nussinov R, Cheng F. DeepDR: a network-based deep learning approach to in silico drug repositioning. Bioinformatics. 2019;35(24):5191–8.
60. Campillos M, Kuhn M, Gavin AC, Jensen LJ, Bork P. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science. 2008;321(5886):263–6.
61. Ching T, Himmelstein DS, Beaulieu-Jones BK, Kalinin AA, Do BT, Way GP, et al. Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine. J R Soc Interface. 2018;15(141):20170387.
62. Valero C, Javierre E, García-Aznar JM, Gómez-Benito MJ. Challenges in the modeling of wound healing mechanisms in soft biological tissues. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43(7):1654–65.
63. Thorne BC, Hayenga HN, Peirce SM. Toward a multiscale computational model of arterial adaptation in ischemic injury. Ann Biomed Eng. 2011;39(9):2560–73.
64. Butcher DT, Alliston T, Weaver VM. A tense situation: forcing tumour progression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(2):108–22.
65. Mota C, Puppi D, Chiellini F, Chiellini E. Additive manufacturing techniques for the production of tissue engineering constructs. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2015;9(3):174–90.
66. Bowden DJ, Rovetta PJ, Donaldson MS, Boyer MW, Bloom SK. Personalized prediction of chronic wound healing: an exponential mixed-effects model using stereophotogrammetric measurement. Wound Repair Regen. 2014;22(2):161–70.
67. Gawel DR, Serra-Musach J, Lilja S, Aagesen J, Arenas A, Pain M, et al. A validated single-cell-based strategy to identify diagnostic and therapeutic targets in complex diseases. Genome Med. 2019;11(1):47.
68. Javierre E, García-Aznar JM, Gómez-Benito MJ. Numerical modeling of a mechano-chemical theory for wound contraction analysis. Int J Solids Struct. 2009;46(20):3597–606.
69. Geris L, Schugart R, Van Oosterwyck H. In silico design of treatment strategies in wound healing and bone fracture healing. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2010;368(1920):2613–31. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0056.
70. Dallon JC, Sherratt JA, Maini PK. Mathematical modelling of extracellular matrix dynamics using discrete cells: fiber orientation and tissue regeneration. J Theor Biol. 2001;199(4):449–71.
71. Zhao R, Liang H, Clarke E, Jackson C, Xue M. Inflammation in chronic wounds. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(12):2085.
72. Sander EA, Barocas VH, Tranquillo RT. Digital integration of mechanobiology and computational modeling in wound healing. Curr Opin Biomed Eng. 2018;5:25–32.
73. Lee Y, Bandyk MG, Wang R, Vanhoutte D, Laforest R, Yamada S, et al. Personalized mathematical models for predicting wound healing outcomes in critical limb ischemia. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):15124.
74. Wang L, Pedersen PC, Strong DM, Tulu B, Agu E, Ignotz R. Wound image analysis system for diabetics. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2015;62(2):477–88.
75. Anisuzzaman D, Wang C, Rostami B, Gopalakrishnan S, Niezgoda J, Yu Z. Image-Based Artificial Intelligence in Wound Assessment: A Systematic Review. arXiv. 2020 Sep 15.
76. Gefen A. Promoting wound healing through artificial intelligence powered dressing development. Wounds Int. 2025 Mar 26;16(1):30–33.
77. Esteva A, Robicquet A, Ramsundar B, Kuleshov V, DePristo M, Chou K, et al. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):24–9.
78. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44–56.
79. Begoli E, Bhattacharya T, Kusnezov D. The need for uncertainty quantification in machine-assisted medical decision making. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1(1):20–3.
80. Kelly CJ, Karthikesalingam A, Suleyman M, Corrado G, King D. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):195.