MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042883431

Rapid review of public health guidance on protective measures for vulnerable groups in the context of COVID-19 [v56.0]

2020· report· en· W7042883431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) · 2020
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)ReceiptPublic healthInclusion (mineral)DistancingEthnic groupVulnerability (computing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

 A variety of protective measures are being taken to protect vulnerable groups who are at high risk of severe illness from COVID-19 in all countries included in this review. In general, people who are considered vulnerable to more severe illness are those that are of an older age, with chronic conditions if not well-managed or are in receipt of therapies that weaken the immune system. \n Belgium, Canada, Finland, Germany, Sweden, England, Switzerland, and Wales have a single grouping for vulnerable people. Australia, Northern Ireland, Norway and Scotland distinguish between those considered at ‘highest risk’ and those at ‘increased risk’. Denmark stratifies according to age groups and the US stratifies according to the certainty in the evidence underpinning each risk group. \n Some countries have published additional risk factors that increase risk, although these do not always necessitate inclusion in the vulnerable group category. These risk factors include ethnicity, smoking, high BMI and pregnancy in conjunction with another condition. \n Since 1 April, Switzerland has added adults with Trisomy 21 to the high risk groups while cancer was removed. \n Advice for vulnerable groups typically includes stay at home, practice hand hygiene, physical distancing and avoid contact with others. Northern Ireland and Scotland have joined England and Wales in advising those previously shielding that it is safe to return to the workplace and educational institutions in-person. \n Advice in England, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland and Wales for those who are fully vaccinated is to continue to follow public health guidance, however advice for those fully vaccinated is being eased by the CDC and in Ireland, Denmark and Switzerland. \n Ireland advises those who are fully vaccinated that they may visit indoors with one other household who also has full protection. While in Denmark, people at higher risk and fully vaccinated can have physical contact with close friends and family, participate in activities with several people and use public transport outside of off-peak times. In addition, HCWs who are medically vulnerable will need to continue to avoid work related tasks which may put them at risk regardless of vaccination status. Switzerland has announced that those at high risk and fully vaccinated are advised that their employer is no longer obliged to take steps to provide additional protection in the workplace. The CDC advises grandparents who are fully vaccinated that they can have contact with their family even if they are not fully vaccinated provided none of the unvaccinated family members are at risk of severe COVID-19. \n The updated ECDC rapid risk assessment on 15 February 2021 reported that the risk associated with further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) in the EU/EEA are currently assessed as high to very high for the overall population and very high for vulnerable individuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.026

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library)French-language works237,207