MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116117562 · doi:10.1086/379076

Pneumonia in Older Persons

2003· review· en· W2116117562 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Loeb

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePneumoniaIntensive care medicinePopulationObservational studyPneumococcal vaccinePneumococcal pneumoniaRandomized controlled trialClinical trialPediatricsInternal medicineStreptococcus pneumoniaeEnvironmental healthAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is an important threat to the health of older adults. Streptococcus pneumonia remains the most important cause of CAP. Risk factors for CAP include alcoholism, asthma, immunosuppression, chronic respiratory or cardiac disease, institutionalization, and increasing age. Residents of long-term care facilities--a distinct subpopulation of elderly people--are at particularly high risk for developing pneumonia. In this setting, swallowing difficulties, witnessed aspiration, and receipt of sedatives are potentially modifiable risk factors. The clinical presentation in elderly patients is characterized by a reduced prevalence of nonrespiratory symptoms. Few randomized, controlled trials of therapy exist for elderly persons living in the community or in a long-term care setting. Good evidence exists to support the annual administration of influenza vaccine to older adults. Although evidence in clinical trials differs from evidence in observational studies that demonstrate clear benefits associated with the polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine in this population, the vaccine is recommended for adults aged

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.361 · 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
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

Citations99
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207