The Risk of Meningococcal Disease in Travelers and Current Recommendations for Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the economic recovery gaining momentum, travel experts predict that tourism in all regions will increase in 2010 by an estimated 3% to 4%. 1 This increase in travel is forecasted to exceed 5% in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, where the risk of acquiring meningococcal disease or becoming a carrier is higher. 2 When evaluating the need for vaccination in travelers, particularly for those traveling to developing world countries, it is important to consider not only the incidence rate but also the impact of the respective infection (Figure 1). 3 As an example, meningococcal disease is rarely reported in travelers, but the impact of this infection can be as devastating for travelers as for any other individual. With its rapid clinical course and narrow window for diagnosis, the potential for negative outcomes from meningococcal disease may be increased particularly in travelers to remote locations where access to adequate health care facilities and antibiotics is limited. There is an additional public health concern with meningococcal infection, as travelers who are carriers may spread the infection in the society back home.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".