MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407636817 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091639

Association between Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index and survival outcomes in patients with urological cancers: an updated meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4407636817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I-Wen Chen, Jui‐Hung Hsu, Jinfeng Huang, Weicheng Liu, Jheng‐Yan Wu, Kuo‐Chuan Hung

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFunnel plotMeta-analysisPublication biasCochrane LibraryInternal medicineObservational studySubgroup analysisMEDLINEOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) and survival outcomes in patients with urological cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library from inception to 7 July 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they examined the correlation between the GNRI and long-term survival outcomes in adult patients (≥18 years old) with urological cancers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test for outcomes with more than 10 studies. Pooled HRs and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: 17 studies involving 8816 patients were included. Study quality assessment showed that 15 studies had a low risk of bias (scores 7-9) and two had a high risk (scores 5-6). Low GNRI was significantly associated with poor overall survival (OS) (HR: 2.6, 95% CI: 2.0 to 3.38, p<0.00001, I² = 64%, 13 studies), cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.76 to 3.98, p<0.00001, I² = 75%, 7 studies), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.1, p=0.04, I² = 58%, four studies) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.54 to 2.23, p<0.00001, I² = 0%, five studies). Funnel plot and Egger's test (p=0.948) indicated a low risk of publication bias for OS. GRADE assessment showed low certainty of evidence for OS and PFS, and very low certainty for CSS and RFS. Meta-regression identified follow-up time and sample size as significant sources of heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: A low GNRI is significantly associated with poor survival outcomes in patients with urological cancer. The GNRI may serve as a valuable prognostic tool in clinical practice. Further research is needed to validate these findings in diverse populations and to explore the underlying biological mechanisms. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023476678.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.064
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 venueBMJ OpenSame topicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease PrognosisFrench-language works237,207