Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42341153›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026

Candidate Passive Sensor Suite Technologies for Tactical Combat Casualty Care Environments: Comparative Assessment Study.

Ericka Stoor-Burning, James Gaudaen, Holly Pavliscsak, Jeanette Little

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2026. 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.

Ericka Stoor-BurningUnited States Army Institute for Surgical Research, Building 1054, Patchel Street, Fort Detrick, MD, 21702, United States, 1 706-993-6862.ORCID 0000-0001-6874-6069
James GaudaenUnited States Army Institute for Surgical Research, Building 1054, Patchel Street, Fort Detrick, MD, 21702, United States, 1 706-993-6862.ORCID 0009-0003-7443-7977
Holly PavliscsakUnited States Army Institute for Surgical Research, Building 1054, Patchel Street, Fort Detrick, MD, 21702, United States, 1 706-993-6862.ORCID 0000-0002-0802-5240
Jeanette LittleUnited States Army Institute for Surgical Research, Building 1054, Patchel Street, Fort Detrick, MD, 21702, United States, 1 706-993-6862.ORCID 0000-0001-9144-7032

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The United States Army Institute for Surgical Research conducted an analysis of 3 prototype sensor suites; all candidates were designed to passively document care delivery in tactical combat casualty care environments. Objective: This study aims to ensure sensor suites remain resilient and adaptive in complex battlefield environments. This research effort conducts a systematic comparative assessment of prototype solutions. Methods: The assessment methodology prioritized functionality, usability, and performance. The assessment consisted of three phases: (1) tabletop evaluations, (2) simulated use testing, and (3) a sensor suite rodeo simulation event. The second and third phases included human participants leveraging the technology prototypes in hyperrealistic tactical combat casualty care simulation environments. Additionally, the third phase allowed the researchers to assess the performance of each prototype in a range of operational environmental lighting conditions. Results: During the tabletop evaluation phase, all 3 prototype sensor suite solutions demonstrated acceptable results (≥1) in the technical specification assessment. The 2-part heuristic analysis revealed variability, where the least complex configurations received the highest assessment scores. To capture and record raw data, scores ranged from 44.6 to 87 on a 100-point scale. To offload and export the raw data, scores ranged from 22.9 to 87.5 on a 100-point scale. During simulated user testing, all 3 sensor suites achieved passing quantitative scores (≥60); the system usability scores (SUS) ranged from 60 to 85 on a 100-point scale. More complex technology configurations received higher usability scores. From a qualitative perspective, vital sign monitor latency display issues led to reliability concerns. All 3 prototypes successfully generated raw data; the individual outputs ranged from 0.06 to 0.13 GB/minute. During the sensor suite rodeo simulation event, all 3 sensor suites achieved passing quantitative scores (≥60); the SUS ranged from 66.7 to 86.7 on a 100-point scale; the most complex technology prototype configuration scored higher. Qualitative findings identified data transfer issues with large file sizes and pairing issues with vital sign monitors. All 3 prototypes successfully generated raw data; the individual outputs varied (ranging from 0.012 to 0.24 GB/min) based on the environmental lighting conditions (full sun, indoor lighting, and low light). However, from a data quality perspective, only 1 camera component produced viable video data in all 3 environments. Conclusions: The comparative assessment revealed opportunities to combine the strengths of both approaches in a next-generation implementation. This preliminary assessment was constrained by several factors: (1) effective tracking of consumable medical supplies, (2) advancement of artificial intelligence algorithms to process the raw data, and (3) ability to manage multiple casualties or patients. Follow-on evaluations are needed to address these limitations. This systematic, 3-part methodology evaluates early-stage sensor suite prototypes and provides a reproducible framework for advancing battlefield medical technologies.

Indexed as

Military MedicineHumansUnited Statesautonomous medical documentationcomparative technology performance assessmentmilitary medical documentationmulti-phase assessment methodologypassive medical documentationprototype sensor suitessimulation-based assessmenttactical combat casualty care

Identifiers

PMID42341153
PMCPMC13293364

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.