GLIM consensus approach to diagnosis of malnutrition: A 5‐year update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) introduced an approach for malnutrition diagnosis in 2019 that comprised screening followed by assessment of three phenotypic criteria (weight loss, low body mass index [BMI], and low muscle mass) and two etiologic criteria (reduced food intake/assimilation and inflammation/disease burden). This planned update reconsiders the GLIM framework based on published knowledge and experience over the past 5 years. METHODS: A working group (n = 43 members) conducted a literature search spanning 2019-2024 using the keywords "Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition or GLIM." Prior GLIM guidance activities for using the criteria on muscle mass and inflammation were reviewed. Successive rounds of revision and review were used to achieve consensus. RESULTS: More than 400 scientific reports were published in peer-reviewed journals, forming the basis of 10 systematic reviews, some including meta-analyses of GLIM validity that indicate strong construct and predictive validity. Limitations and future priorities are discussed. Working group findings suggest that assessment of low muscle mass should be guided by experience and available technological resources. Clinical judgment may suffice to evaluate the inflammation/disease burden etiologic criterion. No revisions of the weight loss, low BMI, or reduced food intake/assimilation criteria are suggested. After two rounds of review and revision, the working group secured 100% agreement with the conclusions reported in the 5-year update. CONCLUSION: Ongoing initiatives target priorities that include malnutrition risk screening procedures, GLIM adaptation to the intensive care setting, assessment in support of the reduced food intake/assimilation criterion, and determination of malnutrition in obesity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.113 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.041 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".