General disease symptoms and their impact on appetite and food intake in older hospitalized patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective longitudinal observational study investigated the associations between individual disease symptoms and appetite among 200 older hospitalized patients (mean age 81.4 ± 6.8 years, 62.5 % women) from admission to 7 days later. The Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire (SNAQ) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were employed to assess appetite and disease symptoms, respectively. At baseline, 32.5 % of patients reported very poor or poor appetite, a proportion that decreased significantly to 23.5 % at follow-up. Notable improvements were observed in pain, fatigue, well-being, and shortness of breath at follow-up. Across both time points, appetite was most strongly negatively correlated with nausea, poor well-being, drowsiness, and anxiety. In particular, patients whose nausea worsened over time experienced a marked reduction in appetite (48 %), compared to those with stable (21 %) or improved nausea (9 %, p < 0.001). Declines in well-being were also significantly associated with worsening appetite (p = 0.002), with 40 % of patients reporting reduced appetite when well-being declined, versus 20 % and 12 % among those whose well-being remained unchanged or improved, respectively. Changes in other symptoms including pain, fatigue, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, and shortness of breath, did not significantly correlate with appetite changes (p > 0.05). In a multiple logistic regression analysis, only nausea and poor well-being were significant predictors of lower appetite scores at baseline and of further appetite reduction over time. This study provides evidence that among older hospitalized patients, sustained nausea and reduced well-being are key determinants of appetite loss. Although depressive symptoms, fatigue, and pain also play roles, their impact appears to fluctuate during hospitalization.
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".