Travel medicine: what's involved? When to refer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define the practice of travel medicine, provide the basics of a comprehensive pretravel consultation for international travelers, and assist in identifying patients who might require referral to travel medicine professionals. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Guidelines and recommendations on travel medicine and travel-related illnesses by national and international travel health authorities were reviewed. MEDLINE and EMBASE searches for related literature were also performed. MAIN MESSAGE: Travel medicine is a highly dynamic specialty that focuses on pretravel preventive care. A comprehensive risk assessment for each individual traveler is essential in order to accurately evaluate traveler-, itinerary-, and destination-specific risks, and to advise on the most appropriate risk management interventions to promote health and prevent adverse health outcomes during travel. Vaccinations might also be required and should be personalized according to the individual traveler's immunization history, travel itinerary, and the amount of time available before departure. CONCLUSION: A traveler's health and safety depends on a practitioner's level of expertise in providing pretravel counseling and vaccinations, if required. Those who advise travelers are encouraged to be aware of the extent of this responsibility and to refer all high-risk travelers to travel medicine professionals whenever possible.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".