A preliminary investigation into diet adequacy in senior residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate dietary intake is essential to maintain good health. This is particularly true for the elderly. This study investigated the dietary intakes of seniors residing in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) and assessed the adequacy of nutrients which they consumed as food. METHODS: Between November 2012 and January 2013, we recruited senior residents in NL, aged 65 years or older Participants were required to complete two questionnaires, one food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and one general health questionnaire (GHQ). Macro- and micro- nutrients in foods consumed were estimated using the Elizabeth Stewart Hands and Associations (ESHA) nutrient analysis software. The nutrient intakes were compared with appropriate components of the dietary reference intakes (DRIs) adopted by Health Canada to determine adequacy. Various descriptive statistical analyses were performed using SPSS. RESULTS: One hundred-and-eleven participants (69 females and 42 males) completed the surveys and were included in the analysis. A considerable portion of subjects were overweight (41.7%) or obese (25%), and had at least one chronic illness (86.5%). Many seniors studied did not meet the daily recommendations for dietary intakes of nutrients supported by Health Canada, notably vitamin E (84.7%) and vitamin D (68.5%). Our study also suggests that about 40% of participants consumed more dietary energy as fat than is recommended. CONCLUSION: The present study revealed an inadequate consumption of essential nutrients from foods in a noninstitutionalized senior population of NL.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".