The evolution of nutritional status of geriatric patients without cachexia is associated with food intake in sub-acute care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if changes in patients' nutritional status during hospitalization are related to daily energy and protein intakes when cachectic/inflammatory conditions are controlled for. DESIGN: Prospective study. SUBJECTS: A total of 32 non-cachectic patients (21 women; 65-92 y). METHODS: Nutritional status was evaluated at admission and discharge using the Protein-Energy Malnutrition Index which includes BMI, %IBW, TS, MAC, albumin, hemoglobin and lymphocyte count. Food intake was assessed 3 meals/day every other day for an average of 46.2 +/- 14.6 meals/participant. RESULTS: In all, 47% of the study sample was malnourished at admission. Nutritional status improved in 73% of patients who had been identified as malnourished and in 30 % of non-malnourished patients at admission. Total energy intake correlated with improvements in BMI, %IBW and total lymphocyte count (all p < 0.04). Improvement in PEMI score for the whole group was associated with functional status (p < 0.05). Controlling for this variable, energy (kj/kg body weight) and protein (g/kg body weight) intakes correlated positively with improvements in BMI, %IBW and MAC (Energy: partial r = 0.644, 0.624, 0.466 respectively; Protein: partial r = 0.582, 0.554, 0.433 respectively; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study offer strong evidence that when cachectic/inflammatory conditions are controlled for, standard nutrition care is compatible with the maintenance or improvement of nutritional status during the hospital stay.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".