Indicators of Pediatric Malnutrition in a Tertiary Care Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of malnutrition at a Canadian children's hospital based on medical records and to identify gaps in current practices and rates/reasons for dietitian consult. METHODS: A retrospective chart audit of patients admitted during a winter season was completed. Patients with length of stay <4 days were excluded, as were those with fluid retention diseases. Outcome variables included anthropometrics, diet order, rates and reasons for dietitian consult, and biochemical data. RESULTS: Of the 83 charts reviewed (mean ± SD age 7.3 ± 5.6 years of age), weights were recorded less frequently than recommended (45% of patients ≤2 years of age and 85% of patients >2 years of age met or exceeded recommendations). Twenty-nine (36%) patients were identified at potential increased nutrition risk for overweight, 10 (12%) for underweight, and 31 (38%) patients had nutrition-related chart notes. Only 23 patients (28%) received a dietitian consult and, of those, 21 had a nutrition related chart note. Consultation occurred an average 5.4 ± 4.96 days after admission. CONCLUSIONS: These data emphasize the need for development of standardized screening and assessment tools to better identify pediatric patients at risk for malnutrition and to improve access to optimal nutrition care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".