MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4384829247 · doi:10.24124/2023/59405

Entering Canadian long-term care with obesity: Exploring initial assessment data

2023· dissertation· en· W4384829247 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alishia Lindsay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObesityGerontologyPopulationMedicineDemographyLong-term careEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian population is aging, and rates of obesity are also on the rise. These demographic changes have implications for the long-term care (LTC) system in Canada that need to be better understood, yet little is known about the population with obesity in Canadian LTC. In this thesis, an exploratory analysis of residents newly entering LTC between 2010 and 2020 is provided. Cross-tabulations and chi-squared statistical testing (p≤0.001) were employed to analyze retroactive, consecutive cross-sectional initial assessment data (N=350,348) from the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s (CIHI) Community Care Reporting System (CCRS) to explore the levels of obesity, demographic characteristics (age, sex, primary language, rural or urban previous residency), rates of health conditions, and independence and assistance levels of activities of daily living (ADLs). Over the full study period, the rate of obesity for the population entering LTC was 19%, and 7% entered with at least class II obesity (≥35 kg/m2). Rates of obesity and BMI obesity categories tended to increase incrementally over the course of the study period. Those entering LTC with obesity were more likely to be younger, female, English/French speaking, and arriving from rural areas. Individuals with obesity had lower rates of dementia and higher levels of independence when performing ADLs. They also exhibited higher rates of diabetes and a greater need for two+ person assistance for ADLs. This thesis begins to fill in the gap in our understanding of the population with obesity in LTC, providing a broad picture of the heterogeneous nature of the population, including important differences in health and ADL profiles across the three obesity BMI categories (i.e., classes I-III).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.317
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicObesity and Health Practices→French-language works237,207→