Dietary Intake of Elderly Living in Toronto Long-Term Care Facilities: Comparison to the Dietary Reference Intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the dietary intake of elderly living in 11 long-term care facilities (LTCFs) to the Estimated Average Requirement set as part of the Dietary Reference Intake for older adults. DESIGN: A cross-sectional assessment of dietary intake using a 3 days food record among 407 elderly with mean age of 85.2 +/- 7.7 years and BMI of 23.8 +/- 5.7 kg/m(2). This population sample was similar to the one living in LTCFs in the province of Ontario. RESULTS: The daily energy intake was 1513 +/- 363 kcal (6330.4 +/- 1518.8 kJ). Percentage of energy from fat, saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, protein, and carbohydrate were 30%, 11%, 5.2%, 15%, and 56%, respectively. Although these values were close to the recommendations, 29.5% had protein intake below the recommended 0.8 g/kg; and 38.3% of subjects had cholesterol intake more than the recommended 300 mg/d. More than 50% of the subjects had suboptimal intake of calcium, magnesium, zinc and vitamins E, B(6), and folate. In addition, greater than 15% had suboptimal intakes of other micronutrients such as vitamins A, C, niacin, and copper. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly subjects living in LTCFs in Toronto despite having a normal body mass index (BMI), do not meet the recommended levels of intake for protein and many of the micronutrients. LTCFs staff should monitor dietary intake. Menu modification and micronutrient supplementation may be required in order to meet the daily requirements of these elderly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".