MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021132955 · doi:10.1002/jpen.1873

Evaluation of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition Criteria Using Different Muscle Mass Indices for Diagnosing Malnutrition and Predicting Survival in Lung Cancer Patients

2020· article· en· W3021132955 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNomogramMalnutritionMedicineAnthropometryHazard ratioBody mass indexInternal medicineProportional hazards modelLung cancerMultivariate analysisIntensive care medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is prevalent in lung cancer (LC) patients, yet there are no globally accepted criteria for diagnosing malnutrition. Recently, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria were proposed. However, the role of these criteria in prospective LC cohorts remains unclear. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, observational cohort study including 1219 LC patients. Different anthropometric measures were compared for assessment of reduced muscle mass (RMM) in the GLIM criteria. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and multivariate Cox regressions were performed to analyze the association between the GLIM criteria and survival. Independent prognostic predictors were incorporated to develop a nomogram for individualized survival prediction, and decision curve was applied to assess the clinical significance of the nomogram. RESULTS: Patients in the stage II (severe) malnutrition group, diagnosed using combined calf circumference (CC) plus body weight-standardized handgrip strength (HGS/W) criteria, had the highest hazard ratio (HR, 2.07; 95%CI, 1.50-2.86) compared with other methods used to evaluate RMM. The GLIM criteria diagnosed malnutrition in 24% of cases (292 patients, using the CC and HGS/W criteria) and were effective for determining the nutrition status of LC patients. GLIM-diagnosed malnutrition was an independent risk factor for survival, and malnutrition severity was monotonically associated with death hazards (P = .002). The GLIM nomogram showed good performance in predicting the survival of LC patients, and the decision-curve analysis demonstrated that the nomogram was clinically useful. CONCLUSION: These findings support the effectiveness of GLIM in diagnosing malnutrition and predicting survival among LC patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.176 · 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