MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792164048 · doi:10.1007/s41999-018-0040-8

Vaccination programs for older adults in an era of demographic change

2018· review· en· W2792164048 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Doherty, Mark P. Connolly, Giuseppe Del Giudice, Johan Flamaing, Jörg J. Goronzy, Beatrix Grubeck‐Loebenstein, Paul‐Henri Lambert, Stefania Maggi, Janet E. McElhaney, Hideaki Nagai, William Schaffner, Ruprecht Schmidt‐Ott, Edward E. Walsh, Alberta Di Pasquale

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Geriatric Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences North
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsVaccinationMedicineHealthy agingGerontologyPopulation ageingPsychological interventionGeneralizability theoryHealth careDiseasePopulationInfectious disease (medical specialty)Environmental healthImmunologyEconomic growthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Populations are aging worldwide. This paper summarizes some of the challenges and opportunities due to the increasing burden of infectious diseases in an aging population. RESULTS: Older adults typically suffer elevated morbidity from infectious disease, leading to increased demand for healthcare resources and higher healthcare costs. Preventive medicine, including vaccination can potentially play a major role in preserving the health and independence of older adults. However, this potential of widespread vaccination is rarely realized. Here, we give a brief overview of the problem, discuss concrete obstacles and the potential for expanded vaccination programs to promote healthy aging. CONCLUSION: The increasing healthcare burden of infectious diseases expected in aging populations could, to a large extent, be reduced by achieving higher vaccination coverage among older adults. Vaccination can thus contribute to healthy aging, alongside healthy diet and physical exercise. The available evidence indicates that dedicated programs can achieve substantial improvements in vaccination coverage among older adults, but more research is required to assess the generalizability of the results achieved by specific interventions (see Additional file 1).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations58
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Geriatric MedicineSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207