Utility of Braden Scale Nutrition Subscale Ratings as an Indicator of Dietary Intake and Weight Outcomes among Nursing Home Residents at Risk for Pressure Ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Braden Scale for Pressure Sore Risk(©) is a screening tool to determine overall risk of pressure ulcer development and estimate severity of specific risk factors for individual residents. Nurses often use the Braden nutrition subscale to screen nursing home (NH) residents for nutritional risk, and then recommend a more comprehensive nutritional assessment as indicated. Secondary data analysis from the Turn for Ulcer ReductioN (TURN) study's investigation of U.S. and Canadian NH residents (n = 690) considered at moderate or high pressure ulcer (PrU) risk was used to evaluate the subscale's utility for identifying nutritional intake risk factors. Associations were examined between Braden Nutritional Risk subscale screening, dietary intake (mean % meal intake and by meal timing, mean number of protein servings, protein sources, % intake of supplements and snacks), weight outcomes, and new PrU incidence. Of moderate and high PrU risk residents, 61.9% and 59.2% ate a mean meal % of <75. Fewer than 18% overall ate <50% of meals or refused meals. No significant differences were observed in weight differences by nutrition subscale risk or in mean number protein servings per meal (1.4 (SD = 0.58) versus 1.3 (SD = 0.53)) for moderate versus high PrU risk residents. The nutrition subscale approximates subsequent estimated dietary intake and can provide insight into meal intake patterns for those at either moderate or high PrU risk. Findings support the Braden Scale's use as a preliminary screening method to identify focused areas for potential intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".