TRANSLATION AND CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION OF THE ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL-NUTRITIONAL PRIORITIZING TOOL (RFH-NPT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutritional screening is defined by American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) as a process to identify individuals at risk of malnutrition. Malnutrition is a prevalent condition in cirrhotic patients, and it results in important prognostic implications. Most of the commonly used instruments fail in considering the particularities of cirrhotic patients. The Royal Free Hospital-Nutritional Prioritizing Tool (RFH-NPT) is a nutritional screening tool developed and validated to identify malnutrition risk in patients with liver disease. OBJECTIVE: The study's aim was to conduct the transcultural adaptation (translation and adaptation) of RFH-NPT tool to Portuguese (Brazil). METHODS: The process of cultural translation and adaptation followed the Beaton et al. methodology. The process involved the steps of initial translation, synthesis translation, back translation pretest of the final version with 40 nutritionists and a specialists committee. The internal consistency was calculated with the Cronbach coefficient and the content validation was verified with the content validation index. RESULTS: Forty clinical nutritionists with experience in treatment of adult patients participated in the step of cross-cultural adaptation. The alpha Cronbach coefficient was 0.84, which means high reliability. In the specialists analyzes all the tool's questions achieved a validation content index higher than 0.8, showing high agreement. CONCLUSION: The NFH-NPT tool was translated and adapted to Portuguese (Brazil) and showed high reliability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".