MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092930939 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2013.09.44

Digestive Discomforts and Effect of Ingested Food in People Performing Hajj

2013· article· en· W2092930939 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Osama A. Shaikhomar, Eslam A. Header, Hassan M. Bukhari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHajjMedicineAllergyFood allergyCorporationEnvironmental healthFinanceImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of health issues have been investigated in the Hajj pilgrims (HPs) in KSA. However, it is still obscure to decide which meals contribute to health related issues specifically gastrointestinal disorders and allergies. Hence present study was planned to compare the effect of using different meals on GIT disorders and allergies. The data was categorized into two groups. Group 1 of age matched HPs comprised a Functional Digestive System Questionnaire (FDSQ) to study digestive disorders. Group 2 HPs were compared for those received Toafa Corporation Meals (TCM) and those did not received Toafa Corporation Meals (NTCM). The FDSQ showed some of the gastrointestinal symptoms in male and female Hajj pilgrims differing significantly (p<0.05). The efficacy of the treatment was evaluated by subject recovery scoring (SRS). The 61.7% HPs taking TCM revealed various discomforts and food allergy and the 50.6% HPs using NTCM did not suffer from any disorders. However, the pilgrims taking the meals provided by the Toafa corporation but not showing allergy were more significant in number (p=0.0002). The existing study presents a new method (construction of a FDSQ) for comparing gastrointestinal and other disorders. The present study recommends that Toafa Corporation should provide suitable meals for thepilgrims to meet their actual needs during Hajj and health situation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207