Nutritional Risk and 5-Year Mortality of Older Community-Dwelling Canadian Men: The Manitoba Follow-Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines nutritional risk and 5-year mortality rates of community-dwelling older Canadian men participating in the Manitoba Follow-Up Study. The surviving cohort (n = 690; mean age = 86.8 years) was mailed a self-administered Nutrition Survey consisting of SCREEN II, a validated nutrition risk screening tool and health-related questions. Five hundred fifty-three completed surveys (80% completion rate) were returned, with 522 (94%) containing complete responses necessary to score nutritional risk, comprising the participants for this analysis. Forty-four percent of the 522 respondents were scored as high risk, 24% at moderate risk, and 32% at low risk. Over five years from 2007 to 2012, 212 (41%) of the men died, with 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, and 4-year survival rates of 92%, 86%, 77%, and 66%, respectively. Men in the lowest 40th percentile of the nutritional risk distribution accounted for half of all deaths. Adjusted for other characteristics, Cox proportional hazard models demonstrated that with each unit decline on the nutritional risk scale there was a 4% greater risk of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.96 [95% CI 0.94,0.98]). Early identification of older men at nutritional risk and timely nutrition interventions are essential in delaying the progression of morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".