COMPARISON OF PUREED AND REGULAR MENUS IN CANADIAN LONG-TERM CARE HOMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long term care (LTC) pureed menus are hypothesized to contain less nutritional quality as compared to regular texture menus due to processes required to modify textures. Making the Most of Mealtimes (M3) is a cross-sectional multi-site study that collected data in 32 LTC homes in four Canadian provinces (AB, MB, NB, ON). This secondary data analysis examined if the planned pureed menus were significantly different in energy, macronutrients, micronutrients, and fibre as compared to the regular texture menus. A nutrient analysis for the first week of the menu cycle was completed using ESHA Food Processor software, based on home recipes and portion sizes. Analysis of variance compared menus across and within provinces using the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) standard for those 70+ years. Using the average across provinces, pureed menus offered a nonsignificant lower amount for the majority of nutrients as compared to the regular menu. However, there were significant province and diet texture interactions for energy, protein, carbohydrates, fibre, and 11 of 22 micronutrients analyzed (p<0.01), with NB and AB having lower nutrient content for both menus. Fibre and nine micronutrients were below DRI recommendations for both menus across the provinces. Within each province, similar trends were observed; some homes had significantly lower nutrient content for pureed diets, while others did not. This study demonstrates the variability in menu planning in Canadian LTC and the need for improved menu planning protocols to ensure planned diets meet nutrient requirements regardless of texture. (Supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".