Room for improvement in current influenza vaccines? A systematic literature review on the humanistic and economic burden of influenza in older (≥65 years old) adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Adults aged ≥65 years contribute a large proportion of influenza-related hospitalizations and deaths due to increased risk of complications, which result in high medical costs and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Although seasonal influenza vaccines are recommended for older adults, the effectiveness of current vaccines is dependent on several factors including strain matching and recipient demographic factors. Objective: This systemic literature review aimed to explore the economic and humanistic burden of influenza in adults aged ≥65 years. Methods: An electronic database search was conducted to identify studies assessing the economic and humanistic burden of influenza, including influenza symptoms that impact the HRQoL and patient related outcomes in adults aged ≥65 years. Studies were to be published in English and conducted in Germany, France, Spain, and Italy, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, China, Japan, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa. Results: Twenty-five studies reported on the economic and humanistic burden of influenza in adults aged ≥65 years. Higher direct costs were reported for people at increased-risk of influenza-related complications compared to those at low-risk. Lower influenza-related total costs were found in those vaccinated with adjuvanted inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) compared to high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV-HD). Older age was associated with an increased occurrence and longer duration of certain influenza symptoms. Despite the limited data identified for, results show that influenza exerts a high humanistic and economic burden. in older adults. Further research is required to confirm findings and to identify the unmet needs of current vaccines.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".