Ocular morbidity among porters at high altitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: High altitude, often characterized by settings over 2400m, can be detrimental to the human body and pose a significant risk to ocular health. Reports concerning various ocular morbidities occurring as a consequence of high altitude are limited in the current literature. OBJECTIVES: This study was aimed at evaluating the ocular health of porters working at high altitudesof Himalayas in Nepal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mobile eye clinic was set up in Ghat and patient data were collected from its out- patient unit by a team of seven optometrists which was run for five days. Ghat is a small village in north-eastern Nepal, located at 2860 m altitude. Travellers walking through the trekking route were invited to get their eyes checked at the clinic. Comprehensive ocular examinations were performed, including visual acuities, objective and subjective refraction, anterior and posterior segment evaluations, and intraocular pressure measurements; blood pressure and blood glucose levels were also measured as required. Ocular therapeutics, prescription glasses, sunglasses and ocular health referrals were provided free of cost as necessary. A total of 1890 people visited the eye clinic, among which 57.4% (n=1084) were porters. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the porters had an ocular morbidity. Correctable refractive error was most prevalent, with other ocular health-related complications, including dry eye disease, infectious disorders, glaucoma and cataract. Proper provision of regular and effective eye care services should be made more available for those residing at these high altitudes in Nepal.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".