{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029671717171717172, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00946969696969697, 'mean_word_length': 5.802575107296137, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Combined Usage of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition Criteria and Controlling Nutrition Status Score in Acute Care Hospitals

Introduction: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) lacks reliable blood tests for evaluating the nutrition status. We retrospectively compared the GLIM criteria, Controlling Nutrition Status (CONUT) score, and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) to establish effective malnutrition screening and provide appropriate nutritional interventions according to severity. Methods: We classified 177 patients into 3 malnutrition categories (normal/mild, moderate, and severe) according to the GLIM criteria, CONUT score, and SGA. We investigated the malnutrition prevalence, concordance of malnutrition severity, predictability of clinical outcome, concordance by etiology, and clinical outcome by inflammation. Results: The highest prevalence of malnutrition was found using the GLIM criteria (87.6%). Concordance of malnutrition severity was low between the GLIM criteria and CONUT score. Concordance by etiology was low in all groups but was the highest in the “acute disease” group. The area under the curve of clinical outcome and that of the “with inflammation group” were significantly higher when using the CONUT score versus using the other tools (0.679 and 0.683, respectively). Conclusion: The GLIM criteria have high sensitivity, while the CONUT score can effectively predict the clinical outcome of malnutrition. Their combined use can efficiently screen for malnutrition and patient severity in acute care hospitals.