ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index independently predicts mortality beyond frailty and sarcopenia screening in older adults: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalnutrition drives adverse outcomes in older adults, but routine screening is often hindered by time constraints and reliance on subjective data. The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), derived from serum albumin and body weight, offers an objective alternative. However, its prognostic value relative to brief frailty and sarcopenia screens in outpatient settings remains unclear.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 1,288 patients aged ≥ 60 years from a tertiary geriatric outpatient clinic in Türkiye. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), controlling for age, sex, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Discriminative performance and incremental prognostic value were compared against the FRAIL scale, SARC-F questionnaire, and Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF) at a primary 3-year landmark.
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 581 days, 134 deaths (10.4%) occurred among 1,288 participants (median age 70 years; 67.5% female). Each one-unit increase in the GNRI was associated with an 8% lower mortality risk (aHR 0.92; 95% CI 0.90-0.95; p < 0.001). This association remained significant when the GNRI was evaluated simultaneously with the MNA-SF, FRAIL, and SARC-F. At the 3-year landmark (n = 367), the GNRI achieved the highest numerical discrimination among all screening tools (AUC 0.701; 95% CI 0.636-0.766), though pairwise differences did not reach statistical significance after Holm adjustment. Adding the GNRI to the base clinical model yielded a statistically significant incremental value (ΔC-statistic = 0.044; p < 0.001), representing the study's most robust discriminative finding. Results were consistent across age, sex, and renal function subgroups.
conclusionsIn geriatric outpatients, the GNRI independently predicts all-cause mortality and provides significant incremental value beyond a base clinical model. While it showed the highest numerical discrimination among frailty and sarcopenia screens, this standalone advantage did not reach statistical significance, supporting its integration as a complementary tool in routine geriatric assessment. A data-driven threshold of ≤ 105 for screening and the established cutoff of ≤ 98 for rule-in support a tiered approach to nutritional risk stratification. Prospective, multicentre validation is warranted before widespread clinical adoption of these specific cutoffs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.