{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06935908691834942, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03950834064969271, 'mean_word_length': 4.816326530612245, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?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}}
[Comparisons of three simple nutritional assessments applied to patients with oral and maxillofacial malignancies].

Combined subjective and objective nutritional assessment (SNA), concise nutritional assessment (CNA), general nutritional status score (GNS), and subjective global assessment of nutritional status (SGA) were applied to assess the nutritional status of 127 patients with oral and maxillofacial malignancies. On this base SNA was used as a standard nutritional assessment to compare the validities of CNA, GNS, and SGA. The results showed: 1) the total agreement rate of CNA (88.2%) was higher than that of GNS (78.0%) and SGA (78.7%); 2) the false positive rate (9.9%) and false negative rate (15.2%) of CNA was lower than that of GNS (17.3%, 30.4%) and SGA (14.8%, 32.6%); 3) the diagnosis index of CNA (74.9%) was significantly (P < 0.05) higher than that of GNS (52.3%) and SGA (52.6%); and 4) the nutritional parameters of CNA were measured by instruments with little man-made errors. These results indicate that CNA can be regarded as the best nutritional assessment for the patients in oral and maxillofacial surgery.