Respiratory syncytial virus vaccination in older adults and patients with chronic disorders: A position paper from the Portuguese Society of Pulmonology, the Portuguese Association of General and Family Medicine, the Portuguese Society of Cardiology, the Portuguese Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, the Portuguese Society of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, and the Portuguese Society of Internal Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of lower respiratory tract infection, hospitalisation and death in adults. METHODS: Based on evidence regarding the impact of RSV on adult populations at risk for severe infection and the efficacy and safety of RSV vaccines, the Portuguese Society of Pulmonology, the Portuguese Association of General and Family Medicine, the Portuguese Society of Cardiology, the Portuguese Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, the Portuguese Society of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, and the Portuguese Society of Internal Medicine endorses this position paper with recommendations to prevent RSV-associated disease and its complications in adults through vaccination. CONCLUSION: The RSV vaccine is recommended for people aged ≥50 years with risk factors (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, immunocompromise, frailty, dementia, and residence in a nursing home) and all persons aged ≥60 years. If it cannot be made available to this population, then the vaccine should be prioritised for individuals aged ≥75 years and those aged ≥50 years with risk factors. The vaccine should preferably be given between September and November and can be co-administered with the influenza vaccine. Ongoing studies on RSV vaccines may justify extending these recommendations in the future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".