MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W118706179

The association between nutritional risk and falls among frail elderly.

2003· article· en· W118706179 on OpenAlexaff
Shanthi Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInjury preventionPoison controlBalance (ability)Falls in older adultsChecklistGerontologyOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsActivities of daily livingSuicide preventionPhysical therapyRisk assessmentEnvironmental healthPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To examine the association between nutritional risk and falls among frail older adults. METHODS: This study involved 98 frail older adults with a mean age of 82 years. Measures included background questionnaire, falls profile, a nutritional risk assessment checklist, physical parameters such as balance, lower extremity strength, and functional mobility and endurance, and psychological variables. RESULTS: Approximately 31% of participants had suffered falls. Fallers and non-fallers were similar in age, prevalence of self-reported health problems and medications use. However, fallers had a higher level of nutritional risk and poorer physical and psychological well-being compared to non-fallers. Regression analysis showed that the level of nutritional risk is a significant determinant of falls along with leg strength and balance. CONCLUSION: Although the level of nutritional risk is associated with falls, further research is necessary to establish the causal link and to explore the effectiveness of nutritional intervention as a falls prevention strategy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207