MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4411002209 · doi:10.1093/milmed/usaf217

A Call for Comprehensive Reform of Military Medical Planning of NATO and Its Allies Based on Lessons From the Ukraine War—Cultural Context and the Human Factor

2025· article· en· W4411002209 sur OpenAlexaff
Lennart G. Bongartz, John Quinn, C. Fransen, Dimitry Kovtunenko, К. В. Гуменюк, D. Surkov, Al Giwa

Notice bibliographique

RevueMilitary Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Health and Surgery
Établissements canadiensSurrey Memorial Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMilitary medicineContext (archaeology)Political scienceNavyMilitary personnelFactor (programming language)Public administrationLawHistoryComputer scienceArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The systematic targeting of medical infrastructure, personnel, and casualty evacuation routes by Russia in Ukraine challenges whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) can still rely on the Geneva Conventions for the protection of medical assets and personnel. This necessitates a thorough review of NATO Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) and doctrine used for Medical Planning for future Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO). However, drawing lessons from the Ukrainian experience requires consideration of cultural context, medical evidence, and human factors. Ukraine's military medical system is burdened by its inherited Soviet-era doctrine, which was centralized and resistant to change. Initial reforms, aided by foreign assistance, aimed to modernize this system, emphasizing decentralized medical supply and improved training. However, the ongoing conflict has revealed the persistence of cultural issues, such as false reporting, lack of critical thinking, poor accountability, and resistance to change. Negative experiences can lead to abandonment of proven medical interventions, and without a comprehensive trauma registry, the effectiveness of the military medical system cannot be assessed with certainty. Frontline medical personnel often face high attrition and lack comprehensive command and control, further exacerbating challenges in delivering effective medical support. Despite these challenges to human factors, examples of innovative problem-solving exist. These solutions will be lost if not put into peer-reviewed doctrine or shared in a formal process. Previous NATO engagements assumed air-dominance and safe casualty evacuation and treatment across all echelons of care. The Ukrainian battlefield has shown that a near-peer adversary willing to systematically target medical units and the casualty evacuation system has catastrophic effects on military and civilian healthcare. Near-total reliance on ground-based evacuation platforms has forced Ukrainians to repurpose a large variety of nonstandard vehicles for casualty evacuation, as military ambulances were destroyed and most tracked/armored vehicles are prioritized for combat operations. Future NATO doctrine should emphasize mine-drone-resistant evacuation platforms with versatile (electronic) countermeasures. With the destruction of critical medical facilities, coupled with a high operational tempo and a massive influx of battlefield casualties, conventional triage models had to be abandoned, and casualties may remain in the prehospital setting for hours or even days. Point-of-injury stabilization has, therefore, taken on an even greater role than envisioned in NATO doctrine, and Ukrainian medical personnel adopted high-mobility approaches, such as delivery of lifesaving materials using drones. As medical treatment facilities came under attack, Ukrainians have resorted to distributed and hidden "micro-hospitals" and highly mobile surgical teams to avoid detection. The logistical challenges faced by Ukraine's medical system exposed weaknesses in NATO's approach to medical supply chains, requiring a more decentralized and on-demand medical supply model. The high level of civil-military medical coordination seen in Ukraine is far beyond what NATO doctrine currently envisions. Planning capabilities and tactical decision-making should be included in doctrine and in the curriculum of all medical unit leaders, with guiding frameworks that balance overall operational goals, personal safety, triage, and timely delivery of care. Co-development using validated "lessons learned" from Ukraine can provide a reliable roadmap for strategic reform.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,655
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,060
Tête enseignante GPT0,370
Écart entre enseignants0,311 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMilitary MedicineMême sujetGlobal Health and SurgeryTravaux en français237 207