Nutritional risk, hospitalization and mortality among community-dwelling Canadians aged 65 or older.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutritional risk has been associated with various negative health outcomes among older people. Limited longitudinal research has examined the relationship between nutritional risk and hospitalization and death in community-dwelling older people. DATA AND METHODS: Data from the 2008/2009 Canadian Community Health Survey-Healthy Aging (CCHS-HA) linked to the Discharge Abstract Database and the Canadian Mortality Database were used to estimate the prevalence of nutritional risk among seniors and examine its relationship with acute care hospitalization and death during the 25- to 36-month period following the CCHS-HA interview. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify important covariates, while adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, health status, and lifestyle factors. RESULTS: A third (34%; 979,000) of Canadians aged 65 or older living in 9 provinces (excluding Quebec) were at nutritional risk in 2008/2009. These seniors had a higher risk of an acute care hospitalization (hazard ratio (HR) 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.4) or death (HR 1.6; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.0) during the follow-up period, even when potential confounders were taken into account. Seniors at nutritional risk in 2008/2009 were more likely than those not at nutritional risk to die during follow-up (9% versus 5%) and averaged shorter survival times: 498 days (95% CI: 462 to 534) compared with 538 days (95% CI: 501 to 574). INTERPRETATION: Based on an analysis of data from a large population-based survey linked to routinely collected hospital and death data, nutritional risk is independently associated with acute care hospitalization and mortality. Results highlight the importance of monitoring seniors for nutritional risk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".