ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Diagnostic value of geriatric nutritional risk index and phase angle for malnutrition in patients with COPD: a retrospective cohort study.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The incidence of malnutrition is relatively high among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The main objective of this study was to explore and compare the discriminative ability of phase angle (PhA) and geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) tools for assessing malnutrition among hospitalized patients with COPD who underwent BIA assessment and had available serum albumin data based on the GLIM criteria. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 121 patients with hospitalized COPD with BIA measurement and valid serum albumin. All patients underwent body composition analysis and biochemical measurements. Based on the global leadership initiative on malnutrition (GLIM) criteria, patients were categorized into COPD patients with malnutrition and COPD patients without malnutrition. Bootstrap resampling with 1,000 iterations and Hosmer-Lemeshow test evaluate the stability and reliability of the two tools and malnutrition in COPD. More importantly, the exploratory diagnostic efficacies and net clinical benefit of PhA and GNRI tools were assessed for identifying COPD patients with malnutrition using ROC, DeLong test, Decision-curve analysis (DCA). Results: Using the GLIM malnutrition criteria as the reference, a diagnostic efficacy analysis was conducted using the preset cutoff values of PhA = 4.25° and GNRI = 98. The sensitivity of PhA was 0.691, the specificity was 0.625, the accuracy was 0.669, and the K value was 0.298. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and K value were 0.753, 0.700, 0.736 and 0.431 for GNRI. The ROC results showed that the AUC of PhA and GNRI were 0.656 (95% CI: 0.543 ~ 0.769) and 0.785 (95% CI: 0.699 ~ 0.870), respectively. The DeLong test indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in the AUC between the two tools ( Conclusion: GNRI and PhA showed differing discriminative profiles for GLIM-defined malnutrition. The valid threshold range differed between the two tools. GNRI yielded net clinical benefit over a wider threshold span, while positive net clinical benefit for PhA was restricted to low-risk thresholds.
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.