Evaluation of Handgrip Strength and Nutritional Risk of Congregate Nutrition Program Participants in Florida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine if handgrip strength (HGS) is a predictor of nutritional risk in community-dwelling older adults. A cross-sectional study was carried out to determine the relationship between HGS and nutritional risk using SCREEN 1. The setting was Congregate Nutrition program meal sites (n = 10) in North Central Florida and included community-dwelling older adults participating in the Congregate Nutrition program. Older adults (n = 136; 77.1 ± 8.9 y; 45 M, 91 F) participated in the study. Nutritional risk was identified in 68% of participants, with 10% exhibiting clinically relevant weakness (men, HGS < 26 kg; women, HGS < 16 kg), suggesting a vulnerable population. HGS was weakly associated with nutritional risk as assessed by SCREEN 1 (AUC = 0.59), but alternate cutpoints, 33 kg for men (mean of both hands) and 22 kg for women (highest of either hand), provided the best comparison to nutritional risk. In community-dwelling older adults, HGS was weakly associated with nutritional risk assessed using traditional screening. However, as existing research supports the inclusion of HGS in malnutrition screening in acute care, further research into the usefulness of HGS and possibly other measures of functional status in nutrition risk screening of community-dwelling older adults may be warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".