Brech GC, da Silva VC, Alonso AC, Machado-Lima A, da Silva DF, Micillo GP, Bastos MF, de Aquino RDC. Quality of life and socio-demographic factors associated with nutritional risk in Brazilian community-dwelling individuals aged 80 and over: cluster analysis and ensemble methods.
Front Nutr 2024;
10:1183058. [PMID:
38235441 PMCID:
PMC10792032 DOI:
10.3389/fnut.2023.1183058]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2023] [Accepted: 10/26/2023] [Indexed: 01/19/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction
The aim of the present study was to use cluster analysis and ensemble methods to evaluate the association between quality of life, socio-demographic factors to predict nutritional risk in community-dwelling Brazilians aged 80 and over.
Methods
This cross-sectional study included 104 individuals, both sexes, from different community locations. Firstly, the participants answered the sociodemographic questionnaire, and were sampled for anthropometric data. Subsequently, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was applied, and Mini Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (MAN) was used to evaluate their nutritional status. Finally, quality of life (QoL) was assessed by a brief version of World Health Organizations' Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire and its older adults' version (WHOQOL-OLD).
Results
The K-means algorithm was used to identify clusters of individuals regarding quality-of-life characteristics. In addition, Random Forest (RF) and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithms were used to predict nutritional risk. Four major clusters were derived. Although there was a higher proportion of individuals aged 80 and over with nutritional risk in cluster 2 and a lower proportion in cluster 3, there was no statistically significant association. Cluster 1 showed the highest scores for psychological, social, and environmental domains, while cluster 4 exhibited the worst scores for the social and environmental domains of WHOQOL-BREF and for autonomy, past, present, and future activities, and intimacy of WHOQOL-OLD.
Conclusion
Handgrip, household income, and MMSE were the most important predictors of nutritional. On the other hand, sex, self-reported health, and number of teeth showed the lowest levels of influence in the construction of models to evaluate nutritional risk. Taken together, there was no association between clusters based on quality-of-life domains and nutritional risk, however, predictive models can be used as a complementary tool to evaluate nutritional risk in individuals aged 80 and over.
Collapse