MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283512544 · doi:10.1097/tin.0000000000000286

COVID-19 and Nutrition

2022· review· en· W4283512544 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paraskevi Detopoulou, Christina Tsouma, Vassilios Papamikos

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Clinical Nutrition · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisinformationMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MalnutritionQuarantineBreastfeedingPandemicClinical nutritionEnvironmental health2019-20 coronavirus outbreakIntensive care medicinePediatricsDiseaseOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)Political scienceVirologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical nutrition therapy may have a key role in the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the spread of misinformation, the present review organizes and summarizes nutrition recommendations regarding COVID-19, serving as a reference guide for health professionals. Nineteen official recommendations were included of international, US, Asian, European, Canadian, and Australian origin on (i) lactation, (ii) nutrition during quarantine, (iii) nutrition in high-risk groups, (iv) nutrition for recovery at home, and (v) nutrition in hospital. Breastfeeding is encouraged, and the role of hydration and the adoption of a healthy diet during quarantine are emphasized. Older people and/or people with comorbidities should be checked for malnutrition and follow a healthy diet. For patients recovering at home, hydration, protein, and energy intake should be ensured. For hospitalized patients, early feeding with a priority on enteral route is recommended.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Clinical NutritionSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207