Injuries and Illnesses Treated at the World Trade Center, 14 September–20 November 2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC), the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) deployed Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMATs) and the Commissioned Corps to provide on-site, primary medical care to anyone who presented. Patients included rescue and recovery workers, other responders, and some members of the general public. OBJECTIVE: A descriptive analysis of WTC-USPHS patient records was conducted in order to better understand the short-term impact of the WTC site on the safety and health of individuals who were at or near the site from 14 September-20 November 2001. METHODS: The Patient Treatment Record forms that were completed for each patient visit to these USPHS stations over the 10-week deployment period were reviewed. RESULTS: Patient visits numbered 9,349, with visits peaking during Week 2 (21-27 September). More than one-quarter of the visits were due to traumatic injuries not including eye injuries (n = 2,716; 29%). Respiratory problems comprised more than one-fifth of the complaints (n = 2,011; 22%). Eye problems were the third most frequent complaint (n = 1,120; 12%). With respect to the triage class, the majority of visits fell into the lowest category of severity (n = 6,237; 67%). CONCLUSION: USPHS visits probably were skewed to milder complaints when compared to analyses of employer medical department reports or hospital cases; however, given the close proximity of the USPHS stations to the damage, analysis of the USPHS forms provides a more complete picture of the safety and health impact on those who were at or near the WTC site.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".