Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40890203›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Structured AI decision-making in disaster management.

Julian Gerald Dcruz, Argyrios Zolotas, Niall Ross Greenwood, Miguel Arana-Catania

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Julian Gerald DcruzFaculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Bedford, UK. juliangeralddcruz@outlook.com.
Argyrios ZolotasFaculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Bedford, UK. a.zolotas@cranfield.ac.uk.
Niall Ross GreenwoodAgeno School of Business, Golden Gate University, San Francisco, USA.
Miguel Arana-CataniaFaculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Bedford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With artificial intelligence (AI) being applied to bring autonomy to decision-making in safety-critical domains such as the ones typified in the aerospace and emergency-response services, there has been a call to address the ethical implications of structuring those decisions, so they remain reliable and justifiable when human lives are at stake. This paper contributes to addressing the challenge of decision-making by proposing a structured decision-making framework as a foundational step towards responsible AI. The proposed structured decision-making framework is implemented in autonomous decision-making, specifically within disaster management. By introducing concepts of Enabler agents, Levels and Scenarios, the proposed framework's performance is evaluated against systems relying solely on judgement-based insights, as well as human operators who have disaster experience: victims, volunteers, and stakeholders. The results demonstrate that the structured decision-making framework achieves 60.94% greater stability in consistently accurate decisions across multiple Scenarios, compared to judgement-based systems. Moreover, the study shows that the proposed framework outperforms human operators with a 38.93% higher accuracy across various Scenarios. These findings demonstrate the promise of the structured decision-making framework for building more reliable autonomous AI applications in safety-critical contexts.

Indexed as

Responsible AIStructured decision-making

Identifiers

PMID40890203
PMCPMC12402318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.