Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.) · 2026
Diagnostic accuracy of PG-SGA, mPG-SGA, and GLIM criteria in malnutrition detection and survival prediction in patients with gastric cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Qin Yating, Xie Hailun, Liu Tong, Zhang Heyang, Liu Chenan, Li Xiangrui, Shi Jinyu, Bu Zhaoting, Liu Xiaoyue, Lin Shiqi, Chen Yue, Zheng Xin, Zhao Hong, Kang Min, Shi Han-Ping
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study sought to assess the effectiveness of PG-SGA, mPG-SGA and GLIM criteria for diagnosing malnutrition in individuals with gastric cancer (GC).
METHODS: A total of 906 patients with confirmed GC diagnosis were recruited for this study. Nutritional screening and diagnosis were performed using NRS2002, AIWW, the PG-SGA, modified PG-SGA (mPG-SGA) and the GLIM criteria. The effectiveness of these instruments was evaluated through multiple metrics, encompassing sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values along with Kappa (κ) values. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox analyses were used to assess survival.
RESULTS: Among 906 patients, the diagnosis of malnutrition was made in 76.7% of the patients using the PG-SGA, 73.2% using the mPG-SGA, 55.5% using the GLIM with NRS2002, and 65.3% using the GLIM with AIWW. In the mPG-SGA, GLIM with NRS2002, and GLIM with AIWW, sensitivity was 94.7%, 68.1%, and 78.0%, while specificity was 97.60%, 85.8%, and 76.30%. When comparing malnutrition identification against PG-SGA, the mPG-SGA demonstrated nearly perfect agreement with PG-SGA (κ = 0.88), while the GLIM criteria displayed fair agreement with PG-SGA, revealing a κ value of 0.41 for PG-SGA versus GLIM with NRS2002 and 0.46 (P < 0.001) for PG-SGA versus GLIM with AIWW (P < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratios for mortality ranged from 1.49 to 1.73 across the four malnutrition assessment tools (all P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The mPG-SGA exhibited comparable prognostic performance to PG-SGA and GLIM in individuals with GC and may function as a practical alternative for rapid nutritional assessment in clinical environments.
METHODS: A total of 906 patients with confirmed GC diagnosis were recruited for this study. Nutritional screening and diagnosis were performed using NRS2002, AIWW, the PG-SGA, modified PG-SGA (mPG-SGA) and the GLIM criteria. The effectiveness of these instruments was evaluated through multiple metrics, encompassing sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values along with Kappa (κ) values. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox analyses were used to assess survival.
RESULTS: Among 906 patients, the diagnosis of malnutrition was made in 76.7% of the patients using the PG-SGA, 73.2% using the mPG-SGA, 55.5% using the GLIM with NRS2002, and 65.3% using the GLIM with AIWW. In the mPG-SGA, GLIM with NRS2002, and GLIM with AIWW, sensitivity was 94.7%, 68.1%, and 78.0%, while specificity was 97.60%, 85.8%, and 76.30%. When comparing malnutrition identification against PG-SGA, the mPG-SGA demonstrated nearly perfect agreement with PG-SGA (κ = 0.88), while the GLIM criteria displayed fair agreement with PG-SGA, revealing a κ value of 0.41 for PG-SGA versus GLIM with NRS2002 and 0.46 (P < 0.001) for PG-SGA versus GLIM with AIWW (P < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratios for mortality ranged from 1.49 to 1.73 across the four malnutrition assessment tools (all P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The mPG-SGA exhibited comparable prognostic performance to PG-SGA and GLIM in individuals with GC and may function as a practical alternative for rapid nutritional assessment in clinical environments.