MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influenza vaccines provide diminished protection but are cost‐saving in older adults

2009· review· en· W2049845407 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gregory D. Deans, H Grant Stiver, Janet E. McElhaney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Internal Medicine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationImmunologyAdjuvantLive attenuated influenza vaccinePandemicInfluenza vaccinePopulationNasal administrationVaccine efficacyYoung adultCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deans GD, Stiver HG, McElhaney JE (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada). Influenza vaccines provide diminished protection but are cost‐saving in older adults (Foresight). J Intern Med 2010; 267: 220–227. Abstract. Influenza is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality in adults aged over 65 years. Although vaccination remains the most effective method of preventing influenza and its sequellae, current vaccination strategies provide less protection to older adults than to younger persons. Influenza vaccination in community‐dwelling older adults is cost‐effective, though there is room for improvement. Newer vaccine strategies considered for use in older adults include alternate routes of administration (intradermal or intranasal), addition of adjuvant, and novel methods of antigen presentation. Measuring cell‐mediated immune response to new vaccines in addition to antibody response may correlate better with vaccine efficacy in this population. Whilst pandemic influenza A/H1N1 2009 (pH1N1) has largely spared older adults, the impact of pH1N1 vaccination has yet to be determined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Internal MedicineSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207