Eating Difficulties, Nutrition, Meal Preferences and Experiences Among Elderly A Literature Overview From a Scandinavian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of malnutrition increases with ageing, resulting in poorer health and higher risk of disease. Eating difficulties are important risk factors for malnutrition. Moreover, independence in relation to food and meals is highly rated by the elderly and has been associated with health and well-being. The purpose of this literature overview was to provide insights into nutritional status, food choice and preferences as well as the meal situations of home-living elderly (65+) people with motoric eating difficulties focusing on Scandinavia. The overall aim is to support independence and to prevent malnutrition. Nutritional status in the elderly was found to be negatively influenced by motoric eating difficulties including problems with manipulating food on the plate and transporting food to the mouth. Motoric eating difficulties may result in practical simplifications such as use of pre-prepared meals, less advanced cooking, and omission of certain meal constituents in order to avoid e.g. mismanagement and spillage. Eating difficulties are often accompanied by feelings of guilt and shame. Choosing smaller portions, reducing the number of eating episodes and not cooking independently have been associated with a higher risk of malnutrition. The nutritional effects of eating difficulties may be exacerbated by diminished chemosensory functions. Furthermore, both past and present food preferences should be considered in order to meet nutritional needs and meal satisfaction. Development of refined and socially accepted eating aids, in combination with tasty and nutritious products, is important in order to promote healthy and independent living among home-living elderly with motoric eating difficulties.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".