TABLE 2.
Fraction of casualties restored to healthy vital signs based on the AI-based allocation method compared to the Vampire-based allocation method.
| Available fluid units | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 | 24 | 28 | 32 | 36 | 40 | 44 | ||
| Number of casualties | 32 | 1.00 | 1.07 (0.01) | 1.13 (0.02) | 1.25 (0.05) | 1.33 (0.07) | 1.36 (0.08) | 1.36 (0.07) | 1.37 (0.09) | 1.33 (0.11) | 1.28 (0.13) | 1.10 (0.10) | 0.98 (0.09) | 0.97 (0.08) |
| 16 | 1.00 | 1.15 (0.05) | 1.25 (0.09) | 1.37 (0.16) | 1.38 (0.19) | 1.31 (0.26) | 1.01 (0.14) | 0.98 (0.11) | a | a | a | a | a | |
| 8 | 1.00 | 1.27 (0.15) | 1.37 (0.23) | 1.30 (0.30) | 0.98 (0.16) | a | a | a | a | a | a | a | a | |
| 4 | 1.00 | 1.46 (0.60) | 1.33 (0.59) | 0.99 (0.23) | a | a | a | a | a | a | a | a | a | |
Fraction >1.00 indicates that the AI-based allocation method restored a larger number of casualties than the Vampire-based allocation method. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation) of the ratios of the number of casualties restored by AI-based allocation compared to those restored by the Vampire-based allocation for different numbers of available fluid units and casualties.
a
Indicates that the values are equal to the value on their left.