Swiss Mountain Guides: Medical Education, Knowledge, and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Mountain guides work daily in remote areas and high-altitude locations where specific hypoxia-related and common medical problems may occur. Arrival of rescue teams can be delayed, so mountain guides often have to rely on their own capabilities to provide first aid. Therefore, IFMGA-recognized Swiss mountain guides receive a specific medical education and are equipped with a dedicated medical kit. This specific education has never been evaluated. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all Swiss mountain guides through their national association. This questionnaire evaluates guides' activity, type, and frequency of medical events encountered, medical education, and use of the medical kit. Furthermore, clinical vignettes were used to evaluate their subjective and objective knowledge about prevention and treatment of specific altitude-related diseases. Results: A total of 467 guides completed the questionnaire, 54 (11.6%) of them were identified as high-altitude guides (HA-guides), because they spent ≥10 nights above 4000 meters each year. Mountain guides are more exposed to altitude-specific pathologies, such as Acute Mountain Sickness (AMS), High-Altitude Pulmonary Edema (HAPE), and High-Altitude Cerebral Edema (HACE) than to general medical conditions. A majority of participants (in particular HA-guides) considered altitude-related medical knowledge essential but judged their own education as insufficient. A majority of mountain guides were aware of nonpharmacological preventive measures and able to recognize altitude-related diseases. Mountain guides declared themselves as very confident in treating altitude-related diseases. Objective assessment of their knowledge showed some gaps, in particular related to the use of specific medications like nifedipine and dexamethasone. Conclusions: Swiss mountain guides' education in altitude medicine may be improved, in particular concerning the recognition and treatment of severe conditions such as HAPE and HACE. Better knowledge may be especially important for HA-guides. These data have induced experts in the field to adapt the guides teaching curriculum and medical kit.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".