Half-a-Million Strong: The Emergency Medical Services Response to a Single-Day, Mass-Gathering Event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Emergency medical services (EMS) responses to mass gatherings have been described frequently, but there are few reports describing the response to a single-day gathering of large magnitude. OBJECTIVE: This report describes the EMS response to the largest single-day, ticketed concert held in North America: the 2003 "Toronto Rocks!" Rolling Stones Concert. METHODS: Medical care was provided by paramedics, physicians, and nurses. Care sites included ambulances, medically equipped, all-terrain vehicles, bicycle paramedic units, first-aid tents, and a 124-bed medical facility that included a field hospital and a rehydration unit. Records from the first-aid tents, ambulances, paramedic teams, and rehydration unit were obtained. Data abstracted included patient demographics, chief complaint, time of incident, treatment, and disposition. RESULTS: More than 450,000 people attended the concert and 1,870 sought medical care (42/10,000 attendees). No record was kept for the 665 attendees simply requesting water, sunscreen, or bandages. Of the remaining 1,205 patients, the average of the ages was 28 +/- 11 years, and 61% were female. Seven-hundred, ninety-five patients (66%) were cared for at one of the first-aid tents. Physicians at the tents assisted in patient management and disposition when crowds restricted ambulance movement. Common complaints included headache (321 patients; 27%), heat-related complaints (148; 12%), nausea or vomiting (91; 7.6%), musculoskeletal complaints (83; 6.9%), and breathing problems (79; 6.6%). Peak activity occurred between 14:00 and 19:00 hours, when 102 patients per hour sought medical attention. Twenty-four patients (0.5/10,000) were transferred to off-site hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This report on the EMS response, outcomes, and role of the physicians at a large single-day mass gathering may assist EMS planners at future events.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".