Mass-Casualty Distribution for Emergency Healthcare: A Simulation Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study focuses on the casualty-load distribution problem that arises when a mass casualty incident (MCI) necessitates the engagement of multiple medical facilities. Employing discrete event simulations, the study analyzed different MCI response regimes in Lahore, Pakistan, that vary in terms of the level of casualty-load distribution and the required coordination between the incident site and the responding hospitals. Past terrorist attacks in this major metropolitan area were considered to set up experiments for comparing delays in treatment under the modeled regimes. The analysis highlights that the number of casualties that are allowed to queue up at the nearest hospital before diverting the casualty traffic to an alternate hospital can be an important factor in reducing the overall treatment delays. Prematurely diverting the casualty traffic from the incident site to an alternate hospital can increase the travel time, while a delay in diversion can overload the nearest hospital, which can lead to overall longer waiting times in the queue. The casualty distribution mechanisms based only on the responding hospitals’ available capacity and current load can perform inefficiently because they overlook the trade-off between the times casualties spend in traveling and in queues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".