ReviewThe journal of trauma and acute care surgery2026
Artificial intelligence for battlefield triage in large-scale combat operations: Opportunities, limits, and ethical considerations.
Review in The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractLarge-scale combat operations (LSCOs) impose major constraints on battlefield medical systems, combining sustained casualty inflow, degraded communications, prolonged evacuation timelines, and limited opportunities for repeated clinical reassessment. Under such conditions, conventional triage frameworks-designed for episodic assessment and rapid evacuation-become insufficient. This narrative review examines how artificial intelligence (AI) could support battlefield triage in LSCO, not as a replacement for clinical judgement, but to preserve situational awareness and prioritization over time when human vigilance alone is insufficient. Based on military medical, technological, and doctrinal literature, we analyze AI through three operational functions: extending caregiver perception, sustaining cognition under pressure, and enabling anticipatory and personalized decision-making. Near-term deployable capabilities include wearable physiological sensors, early warning systems, digital casualty documentation, and unmanned platforms supporting remote assessment, resupply, and evacuation coordination. Mid-term developments may integrate multimodal data fusion, predictive decision support, augmented reality-assisted guidance, and partial automation of prioritization. Longer-term conceptual frameworks, such as digital twins, envision fully predictive and individualized triage and resource allocation but remain at the research stage. We further examine the engineering, human, doctrinal, ethical and strategic constraints that govern AI deployment in LSCO, including DDIL environments, data quality, cognitive and ergonomic risks, automation bias, survivability concerns in a transparent battlefield and requirements for robust governance. Overall, the value of AI for triage in LSCO lies in human-machine teaming that sustains vigilance, coordination, and anticipation under extreme operational constraints, provided deployment remains disciplined, ethically governed, and operationally grounded. ( J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2026;101: S177-S187. Copyright © 2026 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.