Energy‐Containing Nutritional Supplements Can Affect Usual Energy Intake Postsupplementation in Institutionalized Seniors with Probable Alzheimer's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether increases in caloric intake associated with consumption of a mid-morning nutritional supplement for 3 weeks were maintained in the week after stopping the supplement and to investigate the effects of body mass index (BMI) and cognitive and behavioral measures on this response. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a previously published randomized, crossover, nonblinded clinical trial. SETTING: A fully accredited geriatric care facility affiliated with the University of Toronto. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty institutionalized seniors with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) who ate independently. MEASUREMENTS: Investigator-weighed food intake, body weight, cognitive (Severe Impairment Battery; Global Deterioration Scale) and behavioral (Neuropsychiatric Inventory--Nursing Home version; London Psychogeriatric Rating Scale) assessments. RESULTS: Individuals who responded successfully to supplementation as indicated by increases in daily energy intake were likely to maintain 58.8% of that increase postsupplementation, although stopping the supplement was associated with decreased habitual energy intake in low-BMI individuals who reduced their daily intakes during supplementation in response to the extra calories. Cognitive/behavioral tests were not reliable predictors of postsupplement intake. CONCLUSION: Institutionalized seniors with probable AD are likely to alter their usual energy intakes to maintain changes resulting from 3 weeks of supplementation. This effect may allow for rotating supplementation schedules in nursing homes that could reduce staff burden, but only for those individuals who are most likely to respond favorably. These data indicate that nutritional supplements and diet plans should be carefully prescribed in low-BMI individuals to limit variability in total energy provided and thus prevent lower-than-normal intake.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".