MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2202756526 · doi:10.1016/j.mib.2015.11.003

Infection in an aging population

2015· review· en· W2202756526 on OpenAlexafffund
Kimberly A. Kline, Dawn M. E. Bowdish

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Microbiology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of EducationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Research FoundationNeurosciences Research Foundation
KeywordsBiologyPneumoniaPopulation ageingPopulationIntensive care medicineImmunologyEnvironmental healthMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global population is rapidly aging. Currently, 566 million people are ≥65 years old worldwide, with estimates of nearly 1.5 billion by 2050, particularly in developing countries. Infections constitute a third of mortality in people ≥65 years old. Moreover, lengthening life spans correlate with increased time in hospitals or long-term care facilities and exposure to drug-resistant pathogens. Indeed, the risk of nosocomial infections increases with age, independent of duration spent in healthcare facilities. In this review, we summarize our understanding of how the aging immune system relates to bacterial infections. We highlight the most prevalent infections affecting aging populations including pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and wound infections and make recommendations for future research into infection in aging populations.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations240
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in MicrobiologySame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207