MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401700711 · doi:10.3126/jaim.v13i1.68496

Medical tourism: Medical dream or nightmare?

2024· article· en· W4401700711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Indrajit Banerjee, Jared Robinson, Kritika Dev, Ashok Pratap Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advances in Internal Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Healthcare and Medical Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNightmareDreamMedical tourismTourismPsychoanalysisPsychologyHistoryPsychiatryPsychotherapistArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical tourism is an act of a foreign national traveling across international borders to undergo a particular medical procedure. India, Malaysia, Turkey, Singapore, and Thailand have established themselves as prominent destinations in the medical tourism industry, while Canada and the United Kingdom are commonly sought-after source countries for medical travelers. The medical tourism sector offers a range of benefits and drawbacks for citizens of both the source country and the destination country. Traveling long distances for medical treatment presents inherent risks such as complications during travel and exposure to unfamiliar environments. For instance, patients may face an increased risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVTs) due to prolonged periods of immobility during flights or other modes of transportation. The most popular desired procedures for medical tourists include elective cosmetic surgery, dental procedures, organ transplants, cardiac surgery, and orthopaedic surgery.Medical tourism is double-edged in nature and can be both beneficial to the health system and the recipient thereof. It is however clear that various international legal and regulatory frameworks are necessitated to both protect the interests of the medical tourist and the treating medical body. There is no question that medical tourism will continue to rise in popularity, it is however prudent that potential medical tourists do their due diligence into the potential destination for their treatment of choice to better nullify the likelihood of a medical misadventure occurring.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.006

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.474 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advances in Internal MedicineSame topicGlobal Healthcare and Medical TourismFrench-language works237,207