Medical Spending for the 2001 Anthrax Letter Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTIntroductionThis paper assesses the total medical costs associated with the US anthrax letter attacks of 2001. This information can be used to inform policies, which may help mitigate the potential economic impacts of similar bioterrorist attacks. METHODS: Journal publications and news reports were reviewed to establish the number of people who were exposed, were potentially exposed, received prophylactics, and became ill. Where available, cost data from the anthrax letter attacks were used. Where data were unavailable, high, low, and best cost estimates were developed from the broader literature to create a cost model and establish economic impacts. RESULTS: Medical spending totaled approximately $177 million. CONCLUSIONS: The largest expenditures stemmed from self-initiated prophylaxis (worried well): people who sought prophylactic treatment without any indication that they had been exposed to anthrax letters. This highlights an area of focus for mitigating the economic impacts of future disasters. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:539-546).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".