<i>Nutrient Inadequacies Among Elderly Residents</i> Of Long-term Care Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Regular, non-therapeutic diets were examined in long-term care (LTC) residents to determine whether these residents consumed adequate nutrients according to current recommendations. METHODS: Elderly (88 +/- 8 years) residents (31 female, 17 male) in five Saskatoon LTC centres participated. All were receiving regular diets. Dietary intakes were collected for three days at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, by using simultaneous weighed and observation methods. Snacks provided and eaten were also recorded. RESULTS: Observed intakes provided more complete data on nutrient intake than did weighed intakes. Inadequacy was most prevalent (in 70% or more of participants) for folate (according to prefortification intake levels), magnesium, zinc, vitamin E, and vitamin B6; inadequacy prevalence was below 50% for protein, vitamin C, and thiamine. Mean intakes of calcium, vitamin D, and dietary fibre were well below their respective Adequate Intake (AI) values. Energy consumed at meals and with snacks was 16% less than that offered at meals alone; other nutrients ingested ranged from 0% to 32% below energy offered. To model nutrient planning, target usual intake distributions were calculated where possible. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that nutrient-dense foods alone may not allow elderly LTC residents to meet intake requirements for many nutrients. Assessment of dietary adequacy in institutionalized elderly people allows for the development of realistic nutrition goals.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".