MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035244506 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.12580

Prevalence of protein intake below recommended in community‐dwelling older adults: a meta‐analysis across cohorts from the PROMISS consortium

2020· review· en· W3035244506 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linda M Hengeveld, Jolanda M.A. Boer, Pierrette Gaudreau, Martijn W. Heymans, Carol Jagger, Nuno Mendonça, Marga C. Ocké, Nancy Presse, Stefania Sette, Eleanor M. Simonsick, Heli Tapanainen, Aida Turrini, Suvi Μ. Virtanen, Hanneke A. H. Wijnhoven, Marjolein Visser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeMontreal General Hospital
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexDemographyCohortGerontologyMalnutritionReference Daily IntakeCohort studyPopulationDietary Reference IntakeWeight lossObesityEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lower protein intake in older adults is associated with loss of muscle mass and strength. The present study aimed to provide a pooled estimate of the overall prevalence of protein intake below recommended (according to different cut-off values) among community-dwelling older adults, both within the general older population and within specific subgroups. METHODS: As part of the PRevention Of Malnutrition In Senior Subjects in the EU (PROMISS) project, a meta-analysis was performed using data from four cohorts (from the Netherlands, UK, Canada, and USA) and four national surveys [from the Netherlands, Finland (two), and Italy]. Within those studies, data on protein and energy intake of community-dwelling men and women aged ≥55 years were obtained by either a food frequency questionnaire, 24 h recalls administered on 2 or 3 days, or food diaries administered on 3 days. Protein intake below recommended was based on the recommended dietary allowance of 0.8 g/kg body weight (BW)/d, by using adjusted BW (aBW) instead of actual BW. Cut-off values of 1.0 and 1.2 were applied in additional analyses. Prevalences were also examined for subgroups according to sex, age, body mass index (BMI), education level, appetite, living status, and recent weight loss. RESULTS: The study sample comprised 8107 older persons. Mean ± standard deviation protein intake ranged from 64.3 ± 22.3 (UK) to 80.6 ± 23.7 g/d [the Netherlands (cohort)] or from 0.94 ± 0.38 (USA) to 1.17z ± 0.30 g/kg aBW/d (Italy) when related to BW. The overall pooled prevalence of protein intake below recommended was 21.5% (95% confidence interval: 14.0-30.1), 46.7% (38.3-55.3), and 70.8% (65.1-76.3) using the 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2 cut-off value, respectively. A higher prevalence was observed among women, individuals with higher BMI, and individuals with poor appetite. The prevalence differed only marginally by age, education level, living status, and recent weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: In community-dwelling older adults, the prevalence of protein intake below the current recommendation of 0.8 g/kg aBW/d is substantial (14-30%) and increases to 65-76% according to a cut-off value of 1.2 g/kg aBW/d. To what extent the protein intakes are below the requirements of these older people warrants further investigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.032
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and MuscleSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207