Dysphagia risk, low muscle strength and poor cognition predict malnutrition risk in older adults at hospital admission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malnutrition in patients admitted to hospital may have detrimental effects on recovery and healing. Malnutrition is preceded by a state of malnutrition risk, yet malnutrition risk is often not detected during admission. The aim of the current study was to investigate the magnitude and potential predictors of malnutrition risk in older adults, at hospital admission. METHODS: A cross-sectional was study conducted in 234 older adults (age ≥ 65 or ≥ 55 for Māori or Pacific ethnicity) at admission to hospital in Auckland, New Zealand. Assessment of malnutrition risk status was performed using the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short-Form (MNA®-SF), dysphagia risk by the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10), muscle strength by hand grip strength and cognitive status by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) tool. RESULTS: : 1.02 (1.02-1.03)], low muscle strength [hand grip strength, kg: 1.01 (1.00-1.02)] and decline in cognition [MoCA score: 1.01 (1.00-1.02)] as significant predictors of malnutrition risk in older adults at hospital admission. CONCLUSION: Among older adults recently admitted to the hospital, almost three-quarters were malnourished or at malnutrition risk. As the majority (88%) of participants were admitted from the community, this illustrates the need for routine nutrition screening both at hospital admission and in community-dwelling older adults. Factors such as dysphagia, unintentional weight loss, decline in muscle strength, and poor cognition may indicate increased risk of malnutrition.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".