Preparedness and Response Strategies for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Incidents in the Middle East and North Africa: An Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Delphi Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) incidents require meticulous preparedness, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This study evaluated CBRN response operational flowcharts, tabletop training scenarios methods, and a health sector preparedness assessment tool specific to the MENA region. METHODS: An online Delphi survey engaging international disaster medicine experts was conducted. Content validity indices (CVIs) were used to validate the items. Consensus metrics, including interquartile ranges (IQRs) and Kendall's W coefficient, were utilized to assess the panelists' agreement levels. Advanced artificial intelligence computing methods, including sentiment analysis and machine-learning methods (t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding [t-SNE] and k-means), were used to cluster the consensus data. RESULTS: Forty experts participated in this study. The item-level CVIs for the CBRN response flowcharts, preparedness assessment tool, and tabletop scenarios were 0.96, 0.85, and 0.84, respectively, indicating strong content validity. Consensus analysis demonstrated an IQR of 0 for most items and a strong Kendall's W coefficient, indicating a high level of agreement among the panelists. The t-SNE and k-means identified four clusters with greater European response engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This study validated essential CBRN preparedness and response tools using broad expert consensus, demonstrating their applicability across different geographic areas.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".