Antimicrobial-associated Organ Injury Among Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Older adults (aged 65 years and above) constitute the fastest growing population cohort in the western world. There is increasing evidence that the burden of infections disproportionately affects older adults, and hence this vulnerable population is frequently exposed to antimicrobials. There is currently no systematic review summarising the evidence for risk of organ injury following antimicrobial exposure among older adults. This protocol will outline how we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses to examine the relationship between antimicrobial exposure and organ injury in older adults. Methodology: We will search for Psych INFO, PubMed, and EMBASE databases for relevant articles using MeSH terms where applicable. After removing duplicates, articles will be screened for inclusion into or exclusion from the study by two reviewers. Title and abstract screening will be done first, followed by full-text screening. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale will be used to assess the risk of bias for cohort and case-control studies, and the Cochrane collaboration's tool will be used to assess the risk of bias for randomised control trials. We will explore the potential sources of heterogeneity and bias using funnel and forest plots of the included studies. Discussion and registration: In this protocol, systematic review methods to identify relevant literature on antimicrobial exposure and associated organ injury have been described. The findings from the review are intended to increase our understanding of the different types of antimicrobials associated with organ injury among older adults, therefore has the potential for improving the prescribing practice for this vulnerable population. This protocol is registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number CRD42020152621).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".