Implementing Nutrition Diagnosis: At a Multisite Health Care Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Dietetic Association Nutrition Care Process (NCP) is designed to improve patient care and interdisciplinary communication through the consistent use of standardized nutrition language. Supported by Dietitians of Canada, the NCP has been gaining prominence across Canada. In spring 2009, registered dietitians at Providence Health Care, an academic, multisite health care organization in Vancouver, British Columbia, began using the NCP with a focus on nutrition diagnosis. The success of nutrition diagnosis at Providence Health Care has depended on support from the Clinical Nutrition Department leadership, commitment from the NCP champions, regularly scheduled lunch-and-learn sessions, revised nutrition assessment forms with a section for nutrition diagnosis statements, and the Pocket Guide for International Dietetics & Nutrition Terminology (IDNT) Reference Manual. Audit results from June through August 2010 showed a 92% nutrition diagnosis completion rate for acute-care and long-term care sites within Providence Health Care. Ongoing audits will be used to evaluate the accuracy and quality of nutrition diagnosis statements. This evaluation will allow Providence Health Care dietitians to move forward with nutrition intervention.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".