MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621038975 · doi:10.1097/nt.0000000000000218

Making the Case for Nutrition Screening in Older Adults in Primary Care

2017· article· en· W2621038975 on OpenAlex

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

VenueNutrition Today · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooResearch Institute for AgingWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrimary careIdentification (biology)DiseasePrimary health careHealth careFamily medicineMedical nutrition therapyPrimary care physicianGerontologyIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many older adults are malnourished and frail; identifying those at risk, specifically in primary care, is a priority. Nutrition screening in physicians' offices, medical clinics, or healthcare centers is one way to identify those at risk who could benefit from treatment. Using the World Health Organization strategies, by Wilson and Junglier (1968) in “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease,” this article presents the case for why nutrition screening in primary care is a needed change in practice. Specifically, it is recommended that prefrail and/or frail older adults be targeted for nutrition screening to optimize identification and benefits of treatment from referred programs. Evidence exists that this approach is not only necessary but also feasible and practicable.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.310 · 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