SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Risk prediction models for malnutrition in patients with cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: At present, many nutritional risk prediction models have been developed for cancer patients, but there is still uncertainty regarding the methodological quality and clinical applicability of these models. Objective: To systematically review and critically appraise existing risk prediction models for malnutrition in cancer patients. Methods: The PubMed, EBSCO, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were systematically retrieved. The retrieval period was from the establishment of the databases to September 30, 2025. Based on the Predictive Model Bias Risk of Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS), two independent authors conducted a rigorous assessment and data extraction of the study. Results: A total of 6,343 articles were retrieved, ultimately including 16 studies and 42 models. The sample size included in the studies ranged from 120 to 4,487. Models were developed with logistic regression or machine-learning algorithms. The area under the curve (AUC) for the development cohort ranged from 0.745 to 1.000, while for the validation cohort ranged from 0.687 to 0.982. Twelve studies (75.0%) evaluated model calibration using calibration curves, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and the Brier score, demonstrating good calibration performance. All risk prediction models have a relatively high risk of bias, primarily due to issues with the study population and analysis domain, two models (12.5%) raised high concern regarding applicability. Conclusion: Research on prediction models for malnutrition in cancer patients is still in the development stage. The predictive performance of the developed models is generally acceptable, but there are still deficiencies in validation and evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.