A refugee′s perspective on their neurosurgical care in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing population of refugees within North America and an increasing awareness of their unique medical requirements. These requirements include both a well-recognized need to understand the different pathologies that can present in these patients as well as the rarely described need to understand their unique perspective and how this can impact their medical care, especially for routine neurosurgical conditions. This paper highlights a refugee's perspective toward the medical system in North America and documents how several aspects of this unique perspective hindered or delayed the care for the management of this patient with a cervical cord tumor. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 34-year-old female Somalian refugee presented with an ependymoma to Vancouver General Hospital 3 days after arriving in North America. The tumor was removed through a standard posterior cervical laminectomy approach. The patient and her care workers were interviewed 6 months postoperatively to determine if any aspects of care were negatively impacted by her refugee status. Problems related to communication, medical history, mistrust of care workers, familial support, and access to follow-up care were recognized and recommendations for improvements provided. CONCLUSIONS: It is well known that the North American physicians must be familiar with the unique spectrum of medical conditions within the refugee community. This paper highlights that physicians must also be aware that refugees may have a unique perspective on our health care system that can negatively influence their care for even routine neurosurgical conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".