MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2332697465 · doi:10.12715/har.2013.1.1

Should an anti-inflammatory diet be used in long-term care homes?

2013· article· en· W2332697465 on OpenAlexaffabout
Navita Viveky, Wendy J. Dahl, Susan J. Whiting

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthy Aging Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Long-term careMedicineIntensive care medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Inflammation is associated with the pathogenesis of several age-related chronic conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, arthritis and dementia. Most older adults residing in long-term care (LTC) homes have at least one of these conditions; they also have some degree of compromised nutritional intake due to management, personal and medical challenges. We hypothesized that an anti-inflammatory diet in LTC is necessary and feasible, and may lead to improvements in the health and wellbeing of residents. Methods: A literature review was carried out to evaluate the evidence on effectiveness of anti-inflammatory diet changes in adults as well as the feasibility of LTC menu revision. Results: Dietary components have both positive and negative influences on inflammation in older adults. LTC menu revisions using the anti-inflammatory diet popularized by Weil, which is designed as a food guide, are feasible. This diet could be used in LTC menu planning to complement and expand upon Canada’s Food Guide recommendations. Conclusions: Implementation of a nutrient-dense, anti-inflammatory diet may lead to improved health and wellbeing among LTC residents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthy Aging Research→Same topicNutritional Studies and Diet→French-language works237,207→