Summary of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) Supplemental Guidance on Influenza Vaccination in Adults 65 Years of Age and Older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adults 65 years of age and older are at higher risk of influenza complications, such as hospitalization and death. As a result, seasonal influenza immunization is particularly important for this group. Objective: This supplemental statement provides an evidence summary on the preferential use of one or more of the age-appropriate influenza vaccines for adults 65 years of age and older, over other age-appropriate influenza vaccines. Methods: The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI)'s Influenza Working Group undertook an overview of existing systematic reviews on the efficacy, effectiveness, safety and cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination in adults 65 years of age and older. Additionally, NACI's evidence-based process was used to assess the quality of eligible studies, summarize and analyze the findings and apply an ethics, feasibility and acceptability lens to develop recommendations. Results: The evidence suggests that high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV-HD), adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV-Adj) and recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) offer increased benefits for adults 65 years of age and older when compared to standard dose influenza vaccines. The IIV-HD had the most supporting evidence, followed by IIV-Adj and then RIV. Evidence comparing these enhanced vaccines was limited. Conclusion: Following a thorough review of the complete body of evidence, NACI recommends that IIV-HD, IIV-Adj or RIV should be offered over other influenza vaccines for adults 65 years of age and older. NACI also continues to strongly recommend the inclusion of adults 65 years of age and older among those for whom it is particularly important to receive influenza vaccination.
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 | 0.034 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.013 |
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".