MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2236087379 · doi:10.1111/nyas.12997

Improving food intake in persons living with dementia

2016· review· en· W2236087379 on OpenAlex
Heather Keller

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaGerontologyMalnutritionPsychosocialPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)MedicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthPsychiatryNursingDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persons living with dementia have many health concerns, including poor nutritional states. This narrative review provides an overview of the literature on nutritional status in persons diagnosed with a dementing illness or condition. Poor food intake is a primary mechanism for malnutrition, and there are many reasons why poor food intake occurs, especially in the middle and later stages of the dementing illness. Research suggests a variety of interventions to improve food intake, and thus nutritional status and quality of life, in persons with dementia. For family care partners, education programs have been the focus, while a range of intervention activities have been the focus in residential care, from tableware changes to retraining of self-feeding. It is likely that complex interventions are required to more fully address the issue of poor food intake, and future research needs to focus on diverse components. Specifically, modifying the psychosocial aspects of mealtimes is proposed as a means of improving food intake and quality of life and, to date, is a neglected area of intervention development and research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it