Illness and Injury to Travelers and Access to Dental Care on a Research Expedition to Mongolia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expeditions provide an opportunity for travelers to undertake specialized travel to more extreme destinations in the security of an expeditionary group with medical coverage. Little is known about the illnesses and injuries occurring to expeditioners in Mongolia or access to dental care in the local population. This study was designed to investigate the prevalence of health problems suffered by travelers and managed among the local population on a research expedition to Mongolia. METHODS: In June 2005, the expedition physician (MTMS) and dentist (DD) prospectively diagnosed and recorded all illnesses and injuries among 16 travelers (eight males and eight females) as well as any indigenous people on a 22-day paleontological expedition to the Mongolian Gobi Desert. RESULTS: There were 53 health presentations and 14 dental problems among the indigenous population and the Mongolian escort. Males and females presented in equal proportions with the average age of 49 years (SD = 16). Presentations involved locomotor/accident (32%), dermatological (23%), gastrointestinal (19%), neurological (17%), psychological (6%), and with other systems (11%). Most accidents were due to lacerations (85%). Presentations were highest on days 4 and 5 (10% or 18%). Females were significantly more likely to present later in the expedition (p= 0.013). One quarter (25%) were handled conservatively with 28% requiring topical treatments with others requiring antiemetics (9%) and anti-inflammatory drugs (4%). There were no dental concerns reported among the expeditioners, although there were 14 cases among the indigenous population. While there were no deaths on the expedition, there were two major incidents, one of which required emergency evacuation. CONCLUSIONS: The health problems encountered were largely similar to those reported for other expeditions. The most common problems included trauma as well as dermatological, dental, gastrointestinal, and neurological conditions. It is important that expedition teams are prepared to manage common problems, such as trauma and dental lesions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".