MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124214023 · doi:10.1177/0884533608321214

The Subjective Global Assessment: A Review of Its Use in Clinical Practice

2008· review· en· W2124214023 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition in Clinical Practice · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalnutritionAnthropometryIntensive care medicineClinical PracticeMedical physicsFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many methods of evaluating malnutrition have been proposed that combine multiple components such as dietary and medical history, amount of weight loss, biochemical variables, and anthropometry. The Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), first described by Baker et al in 1982, SGA was introduced to assess the patient for malnutrition at the bedside, without the need for precise body composition analysis. Since it was developed, the SGA has been used in various different patient populations, including surgical and oncology patients. It remains the most reliable and efficient method of nutrition assessment. The authors present a review of the SGA and how it has been used in a variety of areas within medicine.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.215
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.215
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.395
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.248 · 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