A look at vulnerability in the older population in health sciences studies: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to systematically investigate and review studies on the concept of vulnerability associated with the health of the older population. Articles were selected, filtered, and analyzed following the steps recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using templates developed by the authors. Data extracted included specific details about population, interest, and context. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they: 1) were cross-sectional or prospective, 2) involved community-dwellers aged ≥60 years, 3) were published in the last 10 years, and 4) had as a concept vulnerability associated with the health of the older population. A total of 833 studies were identified and screened, 26 of which were included. Most included studies addressed vulnerability in older adults as an individual aspect, whether biological or psychological. The remaining studies reported vulnerability as affecting socio-environmental, health care system, and multifactorial aspects. Therefore, the concept of “vulnerability in older people” was not properly defined in the biomedical scientific community. When we return to the guiding question of this review, we can conclude that the conditions of vulnerability of older people are being treated broadly and diversely, producing different methodological strategies. The systematic review was conducted in the United States National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) databases between August and December 2020 and updated in September 2022, with registration number CRD42022361649.
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 | 0.060 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".