MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902308581 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy210.465

456. Discrepant Trip Experiences Among Travelers Attending a Tertiary Care Center Family Travel Medicine Clinic

2018· article· en· W2902308581 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Nashid, Jacqueline Wong, Lisa G. Pell, Michelle Science, Ray Lam, Debra Louch, Shaun K. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTravel medicineMedicineFamily medicineMass gatheringDemographyPublic healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International travel can expose travelers to a number of health risks. Pre-travel consultation helps prepare travelers for health concerns that might arise. The assessment of risk, mitigation strategies, and relevance of pre-travel advice is dependent on whether travelers adhere to their planned travel itinerary and activities. Objectives. We aimed to determine the proportion of returned travelers whose actual travel itineraries differed from their planned travel plans (defined as discrepant trip experiences). We also aimed to identify traveler or trip characteristics associated with discrepant trip experiences. We conducted a prospective cohort study at the Hospital for Sick Children’s Family Travel Medicine Clinic between September 2014 and December 2015. Pre- and post-trip questionnaires were compared with identify discrepant trip experiences. Among 186 participants, 121 (65%) reported their actual travel itineraries upon their return. A preliminary analysis of 53 participants revealed a median participant age of 37 years. Most common reasons for travel were vacation (n = 29, 55%) and visiting friends and/or relatives (n = 12, 23%). Median trip duration was 17 days (IQR 13 days); most commonly visited regions were Central America (n = 19, 36%), Asia (n = 18, 34%), and South America (n = 5, 9%). In total, 51 actual travel itineraries (96.2%, 95% CI 91–100) were discrepant from the pre-travel plans that were used to make pre-travel health recommendations. Additional activities (e.g., hiking, caving) (n = 42, 82.3%) and unplanned environments visited (e.g., altitude, jungle) (n = 32, 62.7%) during travel were the trip characteristics most likely to be discrepant. We did not identify any traveler demographic features or planned trip characteristics that predicted either discrepant trip experiences. Based on our preliminary analysis, the majority of travelers reported discrepant trip experiences. We plan to complete the analysis of the full cohort (N = 121) and also to quantify if the discrepant features meaningfully altered health risks during travel. This study informs practitioners providing pre-travel consultation to consider broader counseling as discrepancies from planned travel are common. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207