Nutritional Risk in Community-dwelling Older Men: The Manitoba Follow-up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The role of nutrition in older men's health and successful aging has been inadequately studied. We examined the relationships among nutritional risk, self-rated health, and successful aging in community-dwelling Canadian older men. METHODS: The surviving cohort of the Manitoba Follow-up Study (n=690, mean age = 86.8 years) were sent a self-administered nutrition survey in December 2007. The survey consisted of the Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition, version II (SCREEN II), a validated tool for assessing nutritional risk of cognitively intact community-living older adults, and questions about successful aging and health. RESULTS: Of the 553 surveys returned (80% response), 522 with complete SCREEN II data were included in the analysis. Forty-four percent of respondents were at high nutritional risk, 24% were at moderate risk, and 32% were at low risk. Significant relationships were found between nutritional risk and self-rated health (P<0.0001) and successful aging (P=0.008), with greater nutritional risk associated with lower self-ratings of health and successful aging. Higher use of prescription medication was related to greater nutritional risk (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional screening programs for community-dwelling older men are warranted as two-thirds of the study participants were at nutritional risk. Identifying older men at nutritional risk is a critical step in the process of nutritional assessment, and subsequent nutrition interventions and follow-up are required to prevent further health decline.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".