Nutritional Risk Predicts Quality of Life in Elderly Community-Living Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although nutrition parameters have been linked to quality of life (QOL), few studies have determined if nutritional risk predicts changes in QOL over time in older adults. METHODS: 367 frail older adults were recruited from 23 service agencies in the community. Baseline interview included nutritional risk as measured by SCREEN (Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition), as well as a wide variety of covariates. Participants were contacted every 3 months for 18 months to determine QOL as measured by three questions from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a general whole-life satisfaction question, and a general change in QOL question. "Good physical health days" from the BRFSS was the focus of bivariate and multivariate analyses, adjusting for influential covariates. RESULTS: Seniors with high nutritional risk had fewer good physical health days and whole-life satisfaction at each follow-up point compared with those at low risk. In general, participants reported decreases in general QOL from baseline, with those in the moderate nutritional risk category most likely to report this change. Nutritional risk predicted change in good physical health days over time. Other important covariates include: gender, number of health conditions, perceived health, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional risk is an independent predictor of change in health-related QOL. The results also indicate a relationship between nutrition and the more holistic view of QOL. Evaluation studies of interventions for older adults need to include QOL measures as potential outcomes to further demonstrate the benefits of good nutrition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".