Artificial Intelligence in Military Medicine.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has garnered significant attention for its pivotal role in the national security and health care sectors. However, its utilization in military medicine remains relatively unexplored despite its immense potential. AI operates through evolving algorithms that process extensive datasets, continuously improving accuracy and emulating human learning processes. Generative AI, a type of machine learning, uses algorithms to generate new content, such as images, text, videos, audio, and computer code. These models employ deep learning to encode simplified representations of training data and generate new work resembling the original without being identical. Although many AI applications in military medicine are theoretical, the U.S. Military has implemented several initiatives, often without widespread awareness among its personnel. This article aims to shed light on two resilience initiatives spearheaded by the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, which is now the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office. These initiatives aim to enhance commanders' dashboards for predicting troop behaviors and develop models to forecast troop suicidality. Additionally, it outlines 5 key AI applications within military medicine, including (1) clinical efficiency and routine decision-making support, (2) triage and clinical care algorithms for large-scale combat operations, (3) patient and resource movements in the medical common operating picture, (4) health monitoring and biosurveillance, and (5) medical product development. Even with its promising potential, AI brings forth inherent risks and limitations that require careful consideration and discussion. The article also advocates for a forward-thinking approach for the U.S. Military to effectively leverage AI in advancing military health and overall operational readiness.

Disguised Among the Sea: The Implications of Artificial Islands on Casualty Care in the Indo-Pacific.

As reported in the 2022 Biden-Harris National Security Strategy, China is perceived as the primary U.S. competitor with the intent and means to become the world's greatest superpower. China's efforts, which are at odds with America's ambition to maintain its global influence, are complemented by ostensibly harmless "gray zone tactics," defined as coercive geopolitical, economic, military, and cyber activities below the use of kinetic military force. Such tactics may be utilized with seemingly innocuous intentions, but in reality, they can complicate U.S. combat casualty care in the event of an Indo-Pacific conflict. One tactic of particular impact is China's development of artificial islands throughout the South China Sea. By creating these islands, China is expanding its reach beyond its continental borders. These islands, alongside China's well-developed naval and missile capabilities, will cause disruptions to U.S. casualty care staging, medical resupply, and aeromedical evacuations. To mitigate those threats, the USA should implement a robust regional Combatant Command Trauma System, improve global health security cooperation with local partner nations, and implement irregular or guerilla trauma systems that meet medical needs in impromptu, clandestine settings. Operational recommendations based on these efforts could include pre-positioning tactical combat casualty care and damage control resuscitation supplies and developing with nearby host-nation evacuation platforms such as small boat operators. These solutions, among others, require years of training, relationship-building, and capability development to institute successfully. As a result, U.S. Military leaders should act now to incorporate these strategies into their irregular warfare, low-intensity conflict, and large-scale combat operation toolkits.

An Analysis of International Military Health Systems Using the Military Medical Corps Worldwide Almanac.

INTRODUCTION: A number of organizations publish comparisons of civilian health systems between countries. However, the authors were unable to find a global, systematic, and contemporary analysis of military healthcare systems. Although many databases exist for comparing national healthcare systems, the only such compilation of information for military medical systems is the Military Medical Almanac. A thorough review of the Almanac was conducted to understand the quality of information provided in each country's profile and to develop a framework for comparing between countries. This information is valuable because it can facilitate collaboration and lesson sharing between nations while providing a structured source of information about a nation's military medical capabilities for internal use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each of the 142 profiles (submitted by 132 countries) published in the Almanac were reviewed. The information provided was extracted and aggregated into a spreadsheet that covered the broader categories of country background, force demographics, beneficiary populations, administration and oversight, physical structures and capabilities, research capabilities, and culture and artifacts. An initial sample of 20 countries was evaluated to test these categories and their subsections before the rest of the submissions were reviewed. Clear definitions were revised and established for each of the 69 subcategories. Qualitative and quantitative data were compiled in the spreadsheet to enable comparisons between entries. RESULTS: Significant variation was found in how information was presented in country profiles and to what extent this was comparable between submissions. The most consistently provided information was in the country background, where the categories ranged from 90.15% to 100% completion across submissions. There was inconsistency in reporting of the numbers and types of healthcare workers employed within military medical services. Nearly 25% of nations reported providing medical care to family members of service members, but retirees, veterans, reservists, and law enforcement personnel were also mentioned. Some countries described organizational structures, military medical education institutions, and humanitarian operations. A few reported military medical research capabilities, though each research domain was present in 25% or less of all submissions. Interestingly, cultural identities such as emblems were present in nearly 90% of profiles, with many countries also having badges, symbols, and mottos. CONCLUSIONS: The Military Medical Almanac is potentially a highly valuable collection of publicly available baseline information on military medical services across the world. However, the quality of this collection is highly dependent on the submission provided by each country. It is recommended that the template for collecting information on each health system be refined, alongside an effort to increase awareness of the value of the Almanac as an opportunity to raise the international profile of each country's military medical system. This will ensure that the Almanac can better serve the international military medical community.