<i>Protein Content of Puréed Diets:</i> Implications for Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Texture-modified diets offered in long-term care (LTC) facilities are often prepared from the regular menu, planned using Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating. The appropriateness of protein levels of puréed diets in LTC facilities was determined. METHODS: Protein content was measured in 29 duplicate diets, collected from 20 urban LTC facilities in Saskatchewan (SK) and Ontario (ON). Mealtime puréed food intakes of 20 LTC residents were assessed. The target protein levels were calculated as estimated average requirements plus one or two standard deviations of intake, thus allowing for moderate (16%) or low (2.5%) risk of inadequacy, respectively. RESULTS: The duplicate diets provided 57.9 +/- 7.9 and 85.4 +/- 31.1 g/day of protein in SK and ON, respectively. Protein intake of SK LTC residents consuming puréed food averaged 54 +/- 19 g/day. Only 43% of the SK puréed diets provided more than 59 g/day of protein and none provided more than 78 g/day; in contrast, 87% and 40% of ON puréed diets provided more than 59 and 78 g/day of protein, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In-house prepared puréed diets do not consistently provide sufficient protein levels to ensure a low risk of inadequacy for the LTC residents consuming these diets.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".