MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383683347 · doi:10.58931/cpct.2023.1213

Immunization in midlife

2023· article· en· W4383683347 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vivien Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Primary Care Today · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMedicineDiseaseImmunizationHealth careIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)PopulationIntensive care medicineFamily medicineGerontologyImmunologyEnvironmental healthNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Midlife is often defined as age 50 and above and is a period of life when patients commonly access the healthcare system, having recognized the need for various preventions. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) identified cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer and osteoporosis as the most common causes of morbidity, disability, and poor quality of life in post-menopausal women. Healthcare professionals routinely screen patients with risk factors for these diseases and offer prevention and treatment to improve their quality of life. However, recommendations for immunizations are often neglected leading to unnecessary morbidity and mortality in our aging population. In Canada, it is estimated that 20,000 hospitalizations related to influenza occur each year and that 4,000 to 8,000 Canadians die from influenza-related complications alone. Vaccines can prevent the debilitating and fatal effects of infectious disease, yet clinical evidence has revealed an adult immunization gap. Midlife screening and intervention should serve as an immunization checkpoint, providing an opportunity for healthcare professionals to optimize quality of care and health maintenance in older patients.

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)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Primary Care TodaySame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207