Evaluation of Nutrition Status Using the Subjective Global Assessment: Malnutrition, Cachexia, and Sarcopenia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subjective global assessment (SGA) is a nutrition assessment tool that refers to an overall evaluation of a patient's history and physical examination and uses structured clinical parameters to diagnose malnutrition. The SGA is known to be a reliable and valid tool that predicts morbidity and mortality associated with malnutrition. The objective of SGA is to identify patients likely to benefit from nutrition intervention and therefore to identify persons in whom inadequate nutrition intake or absorption explain features of malnutrition, including body wasting. There are other conditions that cause weight loss, muscle wasting, and fat loss, including cachexia and sarcopenia. Acknowledging that these 2 last conditions differ in their mechanism of body wasting and consequently in the outcomes of nutrition intervention, the practitioner needs a tool to identify when malnutrition is the dominating factor to explain body wasting. The SGA form has been revised to clearly reflect the key concepts behind the diagnosis of malnutrition and help to distinguish this condition from other wasting conditions. This review presents the revised SGA form and guidance document. Using case studies, it illustrates the 3 wasting conditions, their overlap, and how the SGA identifies malnutrition as a dominating factor of body wasting and thus individuals who require nutrition intervention.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it