ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Validation of predictive and concurrent validity of global leadership initiative on malnutrition nutritional risk screening using PNI, ALI, and GNRI as alternative tools in patients with cancer.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the predictive and concurrent validity of Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria using prognostic nutritional index (PNI), advanced lung cancer inflammation index (ALI), and geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) as alternative screening tools (vs. NRS-2002-based GLIM) for malnutrition in cancer patients.
methodsA total of 11,693 patients with cancer were included in the retrospective cohort study. The Cox/logistic regression analyzed associations of GLIM-defined malnutrition with survival, short-term outcomes, and healthcare burden. Agreement analyses of each nutritional risk-screening tool were performed using kappa statistics and Harrell's concordance-index.
resultsUnder the GLIM framework, all nutrition-related indicators used as nutritional risk screening tools were effective for identifying patients with poor prognosis. Logistic regression showed that the nutrition-related indicator-based GLIM criteria were useful for predicting short-term outcomes, length of stay, and hospital expenses in patients with cancer. Of different GLIM measures, the ALI-based GLIM had the best prognostic discriminative ability, followed by the PNI-based and GNRI-based GLIM, with NRS-2002 ranking the lowest. The prevalence of malnutrition determined using the GLIM criteria based on the NRS-2002, ALI, GNRI, and PNI screening was 29.4%, 25.9%, 26.9%, and 23.3%, respectively. The agreement of the ALI-based, GNRI-based, and PNI-based GLIM with the NRS-2002-based GLIM was 0.550, 0.600, and 0.496, respectively.
conclusionsNutritional indicators can serve as an effective initial step in the GLIM criteria for nutritional risk assessment in patients with cancer, with ALI being the optimal nutritional risk screening tool. Using nutritional indicator-based GLIM criteria is effective for predicting short-term outcomes, medical burden, and long-term prognosis in patients with cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42397474What 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.