Status Nutrisi, Komorbiditas dan Fungsi Kognitif pada Lansia Perempuan di Panti Wreda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cognitive impairment is a condition of decreased brain capacity that affects memory, concentration, and decision-making abilities. Nutritional issues have been linked to cognitive function. The presence of comorbid diseases can contribute to cognitive impairment through mechanisms such as vascular damage, neuroinflammation, and metabolic dysregulation. Understanding the complex interactions between nutritional status, comorbidities, and cognitive function is crucial for the early identification of at-risk individuals and the development of prevention and therapeutic strategies to maintain cognitive function. Methods This research involves the elderly (seniors) from the Al Madiniyah Family Welfare Center. Cognitive status was assessed using the MoCA-Ina instrument (Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Indonesian Version) and nutritional status using the MNA-SF instrument (Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form). Patient medical history was obtained through interviews with patients. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the relationships between variables were tested using multivariate analysis. Results This study involved 23 female subjects. The characteristics of the respondents' distribution based on age classification enter the middle elderly category with 11 subjects (47.83%), with an average age of the respondents being 72.9 years. The most common highest education level was primary school (SD) with 10 subjects (43.48%). The average MoCA-Ina score was 16.9, with a minimum score of 3 and a maximum of 29. There was 1 subject (4.36%) with severe dementia, 4 subjects (17.39%) with moderate dementia, 7 subjects (30.43%) with mild dementia, 9 subjects (39.13%) with mild cognitive impairment, and 2 subjects (8.69%) normal. Nutritional status measured by MNA-SF had an average score of 10.3, with a minimum score of 3 and a maximum of 14. There were 3 subjects (13.04%) with malnutrition, 14 subjects (60.87%) at risk of malnutrition, and 6 subjects (26.09%) with normal nutrition. For chronic disease data, out of 23 respondents, hypertension is the most common comorbidity (34.69%), followed by hypercholesterolemia (16.33%) and hyperuricemia (10.20%). Other comorbidities found include stomach disease, osteoarthritis, heart disease, cataracts and only 1 subject with diabetes mellitus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".