Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40334987›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2025

Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Malnutrition in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

Marco Sguanci, Sara Morales Palomares, Giovanni Cangelosi, Fabio Petrelli, Elena Sandri, Gaetano Ferrara, Stefano Mancin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Machine Learning Models for Predicting Pain, Fatigue, Depression, Anxiety, and Malnutrition in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marco SguanciA.O. Polyclinic San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
Sara Morales PalomaresDepartment of Pharmacy, Health and Nutritional Sciences (DFSSN), University of Calabria, Rende, Italy.
Giovanni CangelosiSchool of Pharmacy, Polo Medicina Sperimentale e Sanità Pubblica "Stefania Scuri," Camerino, Italy.
Fabio PetrelliSchool of Pharmacy, Polo Medicina Sperimentale e Sanità Pubblica "Stefania Scuri," Camerino, Italy.
Elena SandriFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Catholic University of Valencia San Vicente Mártir, c/Quevedo, Valencia, Spain. Electronic address: elena.sandri@ucv.es.
Gaetano FerraraNephrology and Dialysis Unit, Ramazzini Hospital, Carpi, Italy.
Stefano MancinIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Malnutrition is a critical complication among cancer patients, affecting ≤80% of individuals depending on cancer type, stage, and treatment. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool in healthcare, with potential applications in nutritional management to improve early detection, risk stratification, and personalized interventions. This systematic review evaluated the role of AI in identifying and managing malnutrition in cancer patients, focusing on its effectiveness in nutritional status assessment, prediction, clinical outcomes, and body composition monitoring. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Excerpta Medica Database from June to July 2024, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quantitative primary studies investigating AI-based interventions for malnutrition detection, body composition analysis, and nutritional optimization in oncology were included. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools, and evidence certainty was evaluated with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine framework. Eleven studies (n = 52,228 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were categorized into 3 overarching domains: nutritional status assessment and prediction, clinical and functional outcomes, and body composition and cachexia monitoring. AI-based models demonstrated high predictive accuracy in malnutrition detection (area under the curve >0.80). Machine learning algorithms, including decision trees, random forests, and support vector machines, outperformed conventional screening tools. Deep learning models applied to medical imaging achieved high segmentation accuracy (Dice similarity coefficient: 0.92-0.94), enabling early cachexia detection. AI-driven virtual dietitian systems improved dietary adherence (84%) and reduced unplanned hospitalizations. AI-enhanced workflows streamlined dietitian referrals, reducing referral times by 2.4 d. AI demonstrates significant potential in optimizing malnutrition screening, body composition monitoring, and personalized nutritional interventions for cancer patients. Its integration into oncology nutrition care could enhance patient outcomes and optimize healthcare resource allocation. Further research is necessary to standardize AI models and ensure clinical applicability. This systematic review followed a protocol registered prospectively on Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A259M).

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMalnutritionNeoplasmsBody CompositionFemaleHumansNutritional StatusNutrition Assessmentartificial intelligencebody compositioncachexiacancer patientsclinical outcomesdeep learningmachine learningmalnutritionnutritional assessmentoncology

Identifiers

PMID40334987
PMCPMC12281439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.