Anthropometric Indices and Their Correlates in Cognitively-Intact and Elderly Canadians with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Les mesures anthropométriques reflètent l'état nutritionnel. Cette recherche a examiné les données provenant de Canadien(ne)s âgé(e)s ayant participé à la première phase de l'Étude sur la santé et le vieillissement au Canada (CSHA-1). Le poids et la taille furent mesurés chez 1 464 personnes vivant dans la communauté et 963 individus en institution. Les sujets institutionnalisés avaient un poids corporel inférieur à ceux vivant en communauté (59,1 ± 13,8 kg. vs. 65,1 ± 14,1 kg.); ils étaient plus petits (160,4 ± 10.1 cm vs. 162,6 ± 10 cm), et leur IMC étaient plus bas (23,3 ± 5,0 vs. 24,6 ± 4,5) (p< .001). Les valeurs anthropométriques furent plus basses chez les femmes, et diminuaient progressivement avec l'âge. Les Québécois avaient une taille plus petite et un poids corporel inférieur à ceux des Canadiens vivant ailleurs. Les mesures anthropométriques ont diminué suivant le diagnostic cognitif, en allant de normal, à «deficit cognitif sans démence» (CIND), à dément; les participants atteints de la démence de type Alzheimer avaient les poids corporels les plus bas. Les facteurs associés au poids corporel étaient différents parmi les participants vivant dans la communauté et en institution.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".