Vaccinating Your Adult Diabetic Patient: What Vaccines Would You Recommend?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with diabetes (type 1 or type 2) are at substantially higher risk of infections and complications from vaccine-preventable diseases. As a result, persons with diabetes experience higher rates of serious illnesses such as influenza, pneumonia, and other infections. Epidemiological studies show that during flu epidemics, persons with diabetes are hospitalized at much higher rates and are more likely to suffer serious complications (e.g., myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke) than their non‐diabetic peers. Globally, diabetes is one of the most common comorbidities among patients with severe COVID-19. In short, diabetes—especially when poorly controlled or long-standing—is a risk factor for viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. People with diabetes are more likely to be hospitalized or die from illnesses such as influenza, pneumonia, and COVID-19. Clinicians should understand that diabetes itself impairs immunity, making timely immunization critical. Notably, the Canadian Immunization Guide confirms that there is no evidence suggesting that vaccines adversely affect blood glucose control.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".