MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

AI-Driven Autonomous Trauma Care: Transforming Emergency Response in Military and Civilian Settings

2025· article· en· W4411492650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vivek Nair Harikumar

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Policy Economics and Sociology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency responseDisaster responseTrauma careMedical emergencyCrisis responseMedicineAeronauticsEmergency managementPolitical scienceEngineeringPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Timely trauma care during the "golden hour" is critical to reducing mortality in military and civilian emergencies. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and robotics offer new opportunities to improve outcomes through autonomous diagnostics, triage, and logistical coordination. However, there remains a significant gap in integrating these technologies into trauma care systems, particularly in austere or high-pressure environments. Methods: This study conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the effectiveness of AI-driven autonomous systems in trauma care. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, covering publications from January 2000 to April 2025. Search terms included “AI in trauma care,” “golden hour,” “autonomous medical systems,” and “emergency response.” Grey literature and institutional reports were also analyzed. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and AMSTAR tools. Results: AI systems demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.88–0.92) and significantly improved triage efficiency (e.g., 18.7-minute reduction in wait time). Autonomous evacuation using drones reduced mortality by up to 30%, while rapid surgical handoff was associated with a 66% mortality reduction. Applications in both military and civilian settings showed survival rates exceeding 86%. Key areas enhanced by AI included injury detection, patient prioritization, evacuation logistics, and outcome prediction. Discussion: AI-driven systems enhance each phase of trauma care, particularly within the golden hour. Despite their benefits, challenges remain, including data biases, variable trauma timelines, and ethical considerations. Proposed solutions include the development of offline-capable mobile applications and real-time decision-support tools. Further research is needed to validate AI models and optimize system deployment in resource-limited environments. Conclusion: AI-driven autonomous trauma care systems show substantial promise in improving survival and operational efficiency in both military and civilian emergencies. Integrating these technologies into trauma response protocols may redefine standards for emergency care and significantly reduce preventable deaths.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Policy Economics and Sociology→Same topicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies→French-language works237,207→