MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406787832 · doi:10.1016/j.clnesp.2025.01.043

Integrating nutritional status and hematological biomarkers for enhanced prognosis prediction in glioma patients: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4406787832 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ilaria Morelli, Daniela Greto, Luca Visani, Giuseppe Lombardi, Marta Scorsetti, Elena Clerici, Pierina Navarria, Giuseppe Minniti, Lorenzo Livi, Isacco Desideri

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nutrition ESPEN · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGliomaOncologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Multiple inflammatory and nutritional biomarkers have been established as independent prognostic factors across various solid tumors, but their role in outcomes prediction for glioma is still under investigation. Aim of the present systematic review is to report the available evidence regarding the impact of nutritional assessment and intervention for glioma prognosis and patients' quality of life (QoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our systematic review conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies assessing the impact of nutritional status and intervention and hematological biomarkers on survival outcomes and quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed gliomas. In the search strategy Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were used. Search terms included ("nutritional status" or "nutritional assessment" or "nutritional intervention") AND ("glioma" or "glioblastoma" or "high-grade glioma" or "low-grade glioma" or "anaplastic astrocytoma" or "anaplastic oligodendroglioma") AND ("prognosis" or "survival outcomes"). The quality of each study was investigated based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) criteria. Selected papers were in English and included publications in humans. This study was registered on PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD42024555442). RESULTS: Our search retrieved 20 papers published between 2015 and 2023, all aiming at investigating correlations between hematological biomarkers (albumin, prealbumin, fibrinogen) and/or nutritional tools (Controlling Nutritional Score, CONUT; Prognostic Nutritional Index, PNI) and survival outcomes and quality of life of glioma patients. Nutritional intervention as well was evaluated for outcomes prediction. Overall, most papers contributed to the evidence of how nutritional assessment and inflammatory biomarkers could play an independent prognostic role also in the management of glioma patients. CONCLUSIONS: PNI, CONUT score and hematological biomarkers (e.g. albumin, globulin, neutrophils, lymphocytes) may serve as useful predictors in patients with gliomas, potentially influencing clinical decisions. Additional large-scale studies are required to validate these findings and determine the mechanisms by which nutritional status, systemic inflammation and immune status affect prognosis in glioma 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Nutrition ESPENSame topicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease PrognosisFrench-language works237,207