MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409750925 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000004627

Resiliency of the Ontario health care system to care for casualties due to conflict with a near-peer adversary: A population-based modeling study

2025· article· en· W4409750925 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Gómez, Andrew S. Wilton, Adalsteinn Brown, Benjamin Black, Barbara Haas, Stephanie Mason, W. Shane Journeay, Andrew Beckett, Thérèse A. Stukel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careMedical emergencySurge CapacityPopulationMedicineTriageIntensive careEmergency medicineEnvironmental healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Intensive care medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The threat of conflict between near-peer adversaries provides unique challenges to any health care system. As evidenced by the Ukraine-Russia conflict, sustained combat across broad geographic areas has led to a large number of casualties. Furthermore, the utilization of thermobaric and incendiary weapons has been associated with high proportions of combined multisystem blunt, penetrating, thermal, and blast injuries. The management of large volume of casualties with complex injuries will require significant resources. Military and civilian health care systems that may face a sustained and large evacuation of casualties to the homeland for definitive and rehabilitative care must plan accordingly. METHODS: Actual health care resource utilization was calculated between January 1, 2017, and March 31, 2023, in Ontario, Canada, through analyses of population-based administrative data sets. Existing hospital resources were stratified into ward, intensive care (ICU), burn care, and rehabilitation and expressed as mean weekly bed days. We then modeled the weekly addition of evacuated casualties into the health care system with the outcome expressed as added capacity required assuming civilian standard of care would be maintained. Clinical scenarios, which vary in patient volume (84, 140, 280, and 560 new patients/week) and duration (4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks), were modeled. Models were limited to trauma centers or the entire health care system. RESULTS: Added trauma center ward and/or ICU capacity peak requirements ranged from +3% in short low-volume scenarios to +25% in long very high-volume scenarios (+1% to +9% respectively when the entire system was modeled). Rehabilitation capacity would require larger increases ranging from +4% to +37%. However, added burn capacity required ranged from +159% to +1,200% of existing capacity. DISCUSSION: Given that Ontario hospitals (ICU, burn, ward, and rehabilitation) typically run close to or exceed their funded capacity, additional casualty volumes will require new resources and innovative strategies to manage patient flow. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207