MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016965180 · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2009.11.010

Adult starvation and disease-related malnutrition: A proposal for etiology-based diagnosis in the clinical practice setting from the International Consensus Guideline Committee

2010· article· en· W2016965180 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon L. Jensen, Jay M. Mirtallo, Charlene Compher, Rupinder Dhaliwal, Alastair Forbes, Rafael Figueredo Grijalba, Gil Hardy, Jens Kondrup, Demetre Labadarios, Ibolya Nyulasi, Juan Carlos Castillo Pineda, Dan Linetzky Waitzberg

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nutrition · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalnutritionMedicineGuidelineIntensive care medicineEtiologyDiseaseClinical nutritionClinical PracticePediatricsPhysical therapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.082
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0820.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0120.008
Research integrity0.0250.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods · Commentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations267
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical NutritionSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207