MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047502964 · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2020.07.032

Impact of nutritional status according to GLIM criteria on the risk of incident frailty and mortality in community-dwelling older adults

2020· article· en· W3047502964 on OpenAlex
Leocadio Rodríguez‐Mañas, Beatriz Rodríguez-Sánchez, J.A. Carnicero, Ricardo Rueda, Francisco J. García‐García, Suzette L. Pereira, Suela Sulo

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nutrition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital, Gobierno de EspañaEuropean Regional Development FundCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Fragilidad y Envejecimiento SaludableManitoba Beekeepers' AssociationAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsMedicineGerontologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Poor nutritional status leads to multiple adverse outcomes, but few studies have assessed its role as a risk factor for incident frailty and death in community-dwelling older adults. Hence, the aim of this paper is to assess the role of nutritional status using the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria in the risk of frailty and mortality in Spanish community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: We used data from two waves (waves 2 (2011-2013) and 3 (2015-2017)) from the Toledo Study of Healthy Ageing, which is an observational, prospective cohort (average follow-up = 3.18 years) of 1660 older (≥65 years) adults living in the community. Nutritional status categories were defined according to the GLIM criteria, which uses a two-step approach. First, screening for malnutrition risk. Once positive, individuals were classified as malnourished according to some phenotypic (body mass index, grip strength and unintentional weight loss) and etiologic (disease burden/inflammation and reduced food intake or assimilation) criteria. Frailty was assessed using both the Frailty Index (FI) and Frailty Trait Scale (FTS). Mortality data was obtained through the National Death Index. RESULTS: From the 1660 older adults, 248 participants (14.04%) were classified as 'at malnutrition risk' (AMR) and 209 (12.59%) as malnourished (MN). AMR and MN subjects were older and with worse functional status (frailer). Adjusted cross-sectional analysis showed an association between nutritional status and frailty by both FI and FTS. Adjusted longitudinal analyses showed that AMR was associated with higher risk of frailty, using both the FTS (OR: 1.262; 95% CI: 1.078-1.815) and the FI (OR: 1.116; 95% CI: 1.098-1.686), while being malnourished was associated with higher mortality risk (OR: 1.748; 95% CI: 1.073-2.849), but not with incident frailty at follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional status, assessed through GLIM, predicts in a dose-dependent manner the risk of frailty and death. Being at malnutrition risk predicts the risk of becoming frail at follow-up period, whereas being malnourished predicts mortality. These findings highlight the importance of assessing the nutritional status of community-dwelling older adults to identify the ones at risk of developing frailty or death and inform targeted nutrition-focused interventions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.318 · 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