Acceptability of thickened and protein‐enhanced ice cream for use in long‐term care facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the acceptability of thickened ice cream with added whey protein to improve protein and fluid intake in long-term care (LTC) residents living with dysphagia and wounds. Two samples of ice cream were produced, the control sample of thickened ice cream, and thickened ice cream with added whey protein. The International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) Spoon Tilt Test assessed the consistency of the ice cream samples. A sensory trial asked participants (n = 56) to evaluate the samples for their liking of the appearance, texture, flavor, and overall liking using nine-point hedonic scales, followed by a check-all-that-apply question. The whey protein sample consistently passed the IDDSI Spoon Tilt Test whereas the control sample did not. The mean hedonic scores across all categories for both samples were not significantly different. The whey protein sample was associated with natural vanilla, creamy flavor, milk/dairy flavor, and buttery attributes which were important drivers of liking, and was not associated with the gumminess which decreased the liking. Findings indicate that whey protein addition to ice cream did not impact the acceptability of the thickened ice cream. This work is relevant to dietetic practice and those working in LTC as this ice cream will help improve quality of life by supporting wound management and safe swallowing. Furthermore, whey protein can be added to ice cream without negatively affecting its' sensory properties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".