Ethical Issues Relating to the Use of Antimicrobial Therapy in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to review the literature relating to the ethics of antibiotic prescription decisions in older adults and to offer some suggestions as to how one might approach these difficult problems. According to many studies, most patients and their family members wish to receive antibiotics even when they are terminally ill or suffering from advanced dementia. Health care professionals are also frequently reluctant to deny the use of antibiotics in such situations. We suggest that the difficult decisions regarding whether one should withhold treatment can be based on consideration of the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. From the public health point of view, one should also take into account the need to avoid the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, keeping in mind the balance between the benefit to the specific patient and the cost to future patients. Infectious diseases consultants should actively participate in these ethical dilemmas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.071 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".