Community-Based Nutrition Risk Screening in Older Adults (COMRISK): An Exploration of the Experience of Being Screened and Prevalence of Nutrition Risk in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objectives of this feasibility study were to measure the prevalence of nutrition risk in community-dwelling older adults (CDOA, ages ≥ 65 years) and explore the perspectives of CDOA of the acceptability, value, and effectiveness of nutrition risk screening in primary care and community settings. Using the Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition (SCREEN)© eight-item tool (n = 276), results indicated that moderate and high nutrition risks affected 50 per cent and 8 per cent, respectively, of those screened. Interviewees (n = 16) agreed that screening is acceptable, important, and valuable (Theme One). Effectiveness was unclear, as only 3 of 16 respondents recalled being told their nutrition risk status. When articulating nutrition-related issues, a food security theme, expressed in the third person, was prominent (Theme Two). Screening for nutrition risk and receiving nutrition information in community-based settings are acceptable to CDOA and medically necessary, as evidenced by the high proportion of CDOA at moderate-high nutrition risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".