Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination recommendations in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), first linked to severe respiratory illnesses (bronchiolitis or pneumonia) in infants and children, is now recognized as a serious problem in older adults. Since the 1970s, RSV outbreaks have been observed in various long-term care facilities housing older adults. Various studies highlighted that RSV is a major driver of illness in older adult community-dwelling populations. Recently, in Canada, three vaccines, Arexvy, Abrysvo, and mResvia, have been authorized for use in older adults to prevent RSV-related lower respiratory tract disease. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) strongly recommends immunization programs for certain older adult populations, particularly those at an increased risk of severe RSV disease. Health care providers, including nurse practitioners (NPs), should discuss RSV vaccination with older adult patients due to their increased likelihood of comorbidities and age-related changes, such as immunosenescence and inflamm-aging, that increase their risk for severe disease. Monitoring of RSV vaccine efficacy and safety is ongoing. The purpose of this article is to inform NPs about the recent development of these vaccines, summarizing the safety and efficacy information and presenting a decision tree to help NPs make vaccine recommendations for nonpregnant adults.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".