Outcome of a Targeted Nutritional Intervention Among Older Adults With Early-Stage Alzheimer’s Disease: The Nutrition Intervention Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 6-month dietary intervention program was designed for community-dwelling older adults with Alzheimer's disease. Sixty-seven persons aged 70 years and above were recruited with their caregivers from six hospital memory and geriatric outpatient clinics, and allocated to intervention ( n = 34 dyads) or control group ( n = 33 dyads). Usual diet was assessed by a validated food frequency questionnaire and current diet by two nonconsecutive diet recalls or records corroborated by caregivers, at recruitment (T1) and exit from the study (T2). Intervention participants received targeted dietary recommendations; control participants received Canada's Food Guide leaflets. The program was assessed using paired and independent t tests and nonparametric statistics. Fat intakes increased at T2 within intervention participants (54 ± 16 vs. 67 ± 23 g, p = .013), and there was a tendency for higher energy, protein, and calcium intakes at T2 within this group. Proportions with adequate protein intakes almost doubled from T1 to T2 in intervention group women ( p = .028) but decreased in female controls ( p = .030). Longer follow-up is necessary to determine persistence of benefits.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".