MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412686929 · doi:10.3329/mumcj.v8i1.82887

Procedure and Ethics of Triage: Rationing Healthcare During Pandemics and Disasters

2025· article· en· W4412686929 on OpenAlexaff
Abu Sadat Mohammad Nurunnabi, Amir Mohammad Kaiser, Taneem Mohammad, L. Hasan, Probir Kumar Sutradhar

Bibliographic record

VenueMugda Medical College Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriagePandemicRationingHealth careCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Medical emergencyHealth care rationingPolitical scienceMedicinePsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The demand for healthcare services is likely to often exceed supply during pandemics and disasters, as we have experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic recently across the globe; Bangladesh is not an exception. In hospital settings with such constraining conditions especially in low-income countries like Bangladesh, institutions and individual providers of healthcare must use some moral framework for distributing the available resources efficiently and equitably during critical times. Triage is a military term in origin, being used to describe the prioritization of wounded soldiers and the use of available medical resources for maximal efficiency. Commonly recognized examples of triage include prehospital, catastrophic, emergency department, intensive care, waiting list (e.g., for lifesaving treatments such as surgical operation, dialysis, and organ transplants), and in battlefield casualties. Triage has the ability to substantially decrease mortality and morbidity by providing timely and specific care for critically ill patients on a priority basis. This paper aims to discuss triage procedure and ethical debates behind practice of triage during the pandemics and disasters. Mugda Med Coll J. 2025; 8(1): 60-65

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
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 integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.392 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMugda Medical College JournalSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207