Assessing Older Adults’ Masticatory Efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine internal consistency and criterion validity of a questionnaire assessing perception of masticatory efficiency in community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Secondary cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the Québec Longitudinal Study on Nutrition and Successful Aging (NuAge). SETTING: NuAge is a 5-year (2003-08) observational study of 1,793 men and women aged 67 to 84 in good general health at recruitment. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 1,789 was used to determine internal consistency of the questionnaire. A subsample (n = 94) of the cohort who underwent a clinical test directly measuring masticatory efficiency was used to determine criterion validity of the questionnaire. MEASUREMENTS: The questionnaire was a subset of the Oral Health Impact Profile containing 7 Likert-scale questions (score 0-28 points). Masticatory efficiency was assessed using a validated clinical test measuring ability to chew a raw carrot (Swallowing Threshold Test Index, score 0-100%). For perceived and measured data, a higher score indicated better masticatory efficiency. RESULTS: Internal consistency of the questionnaire was deemed good (Cronbach alpha = 0.803). Mean scores were generally high (men, 25.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 24.7-25.9; women, 24.3, 95% CI = 23.7-25.0), indicating good perceived masticatory efficiency for men and women. Mean performance test scores were low (men, 60.8%, 95% CI = 57.3-64.2; women, 61.2%, 95% CI = 57.7-64.7). No significant relationship between perceived and measured masticatory efficiency was observed (Pearson correlation coefficient = -0.14, P = .22). CONCLUSION: Despite good internal consistency of the questionnaire and the recognized validity of the test, people's perception of their masticatory efficiency does not reflect objective efficiency as measured using a clinical test.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".