High-dose influenza vaccine in older adults by age and seasonal characteristics: Systematic review and meta-analysis update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
-analysis of randomized and observational studies published up to April 2023 assessed the relative performance of high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV) and standard-dose influenza vaccines (SD-IIV) against influenza-associated outcomes in older adults (≥65 years). The analysis included studies conducted over 12 influenza seasons (2009/2010 to 2019/2020, 2021/2022), including over 45 million individuals aged ≥ 65 years, and showed that HD-IIV provided significantly better protection than SD-IIV against influenza-like illness and influenza-related hospitalizations, as well as cardiovascular, cardiorespiratory, and all-cause hospitalizations. Subgroup analyses showed HD-IIV consistently provided better protection than SD-IIV against influenza outcomes across the age range (65+, 75+ 85+ years), and regardless of the predominantly circulating influenza strain and vaccine antigenic match/mismatch. Randomized studies continue to drive high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine relative to SD-IIV against severe influenza outcomes in adults aged ≥ 65 years, supported by observational data.
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 | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".