Pneumococcal Immunization in Older Adults: Implications for the Long-Term–Care Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of the polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine in older adults between clinical trial and observational studies and to discuss the implications for long-term-care facilities (LTCFs). DATA SOURCE: A Medline search (to April 2003). STUDY SELECTION: All meta-analyses of randomized and quasi-randomized trials of pneumococcal vaccines with placebo or no treatment were sought. All cohort or case-control studies were sought. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 16 individual randomized clinical trials included in the reviews, 8 compared pneumococcal vaccine in individuals 55 years and older individuals. Only one study specifically addressed LTCF residents. Although no significant protective effect of the vaccine in elderly subpopulations was found, on the basis of wide confidence intervals and small subpopulation sample sizes, beneficial effects, particularly for pneumococcal bacteremia, could not be ruled out. Of the individual observational studies, 11 specifically evaluated vaccine efficacy in older adults. Vaccine efficacy was demonstrated in 9 of the 11 studies with no protective effect was shown in 2 studies. CONCLUSION: Although the pooling of clinical trial data does not demonstrate significant efficacy of the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in subgroups of older adults, these subgroup studies lacked power to show significant differences. Observational studies repeatedly demonstrate efficacy in older adults, and the vaccine has been demonstrated to be cost-effective and safe. It is strongly promoted by U.S. and Canadian advisory committees. On the basis of this available evidence, the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine should currently be recommended for older adults, especially those who are residents of LTCFs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".