Creating realistic nerve agent victim profiles for computer simulation of medical CBRN disaster response.

In the last decades, Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) threats have become serious risks prompting countries to prioritize preparedness for such incidents. As CBRN scenarios are very difficult and expensive to recreate in real life, computer simulation is particularly suited for assessing the effectiveness of contingency plans and identifying areas of improvement. These computer simulation exercises require realistic and dynamic victim profiles, which are unavailable in a civilian context. In this paper we present a set of civilian nerve agent injury profiles consisting of clinical parameters and their evolution, as well as the methodology used to create them. These injury profiles are based on military injury profiles and adapted to the civilian population, using sarin for the purpose of illustration. They include commonly measured parameters in the prehospital setting. We demonstrate that information found in military sources can easily be adjusted for a civilian population using a few simple assumptions and validated methods. This methodology can easily be expanded to other chemical warfare agents as well as different ways of exposure. The resulting injury profiles are generic so they can also be used in tabletop and live simulation exercises. Modeling and simulation, if used correctly and in conjunction with empirical data gathered from lessons learned, can assist in providing the evidence practices for effective and efficient response decisions and interventions, considering the contextual factors of the affected area and the specific disaster scenario.

What to expect from reliability and validity claims? A pragmatic conception of psychiatric nosology.

The reliability and validity of psychiatric diagnoses have always been a major concern. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) reliability field trials yielded ambiguous results, with some diagnostic categories scoring well below par. We argue that the emphasis on the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses, which has dominated psychiatric nosology and guided the endeavor of improving the DSM in its consecutive editions, is misguided and lacks in structural validity. In this article, we defend a pragmatic view on psychiatric disease as the most fruitful approach to an understanding of what the categorical distinctions in the DSM (can) represent. Disorders in the DSM are descriptions of clinical pictures and do not necessarily correspond to an identified pathological substrate. Although this is a logical result of the nature of psychiatric disease, it bears important consequences. The various DSM disease categories are not uniform but should be regarded as representing different kinds of disorders, ranging from a separation from normal behavior based on practical grounds to the discrete kind of disorders envisioned by proponents of a strong realistic view. We argue that the explication of kinds of disorders outlined in this article provides interesting perspectives on the problems of reliability and validity that the DSM faces.