Factors related to improvement and decline in high and low nutritional risk community‐dwelling Canadian older men: The Manitoba Follow‐up Study (MFUS) (1026.8)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutritional risk screening is used to identify older adults who may be at increased risk for poor nutritional intake or impaired status. The objectives of this study were to: 1) determine if nutritional risk can change over time in community‐dwelling Canadian older men; 2) examine the components of SCREEN II (Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition) that improve among men at high nutritional risk; and 3) examine the components of SCREEN II that decline among men at low nutritional risk. In 2007, 690 MFUS ( www.mfus.ca ) members were mailed the SCREEN II survey (80% completion rate; mean age = 86.7 years). The survey has been sent annually with up to 5 surveys received from each 2007 respondent, enabling a longitudinal assessment of change in factors among high and low nutritional risk men. Across one year transition periods, 19% of men at high nutritional risk improved their status, 20% of men at low nutritional risk declined, while 61% had no change. Decreased appetite and dietary intake (milk products, meat & alternatives, fluid, fruits and vegetables) were the most common changes for men at low nutritional risk showing decline compared to intentional weight change in men at high risk showing improvement. As factors related to improvement and decline of nutritional risk for community‐dwelling older men are different, targeted screening, follow‐up and strategic interventions are critical. Grant Funding Source : Supported by CIHR, MHRC, Dr. Paul H.T Thorlakson Foundation & University of Manitoba Centre on Aging
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".