Machine learning models to predict outcomes at 30-days using Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition combinations with and without muscle mass in people with cancer.
Cancer
GLIM
Malnutrition
Muscle mass
Validation
Journal
Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle
ISSN: 2190-6009
Titre abrégé: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101552883
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
revised:
29
11
2022
received:
27
04
2022
accepted:
15
04
2023
medline:
7
8
2023
pubmed:
1
6
2023
entrez:
1
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Equipment to assess muscle mass is not available in all health services. Yet we have limited understanding of whether applying the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria without an assessment of muscle mass affects the ability to predict adverse outcomes. This study used machine learning to determine which combinations of GLIM phenotypic and etiologic criteria are most important for the prediction of 30-day mortality and unplanned admission using combinations including and excluding low muscle mass. In a cohort of 2801 participants from two cancer malnutrition point prevalence studies, we applied the GLIM criteria with and without muscle mass. Phenotypic criteria were assessed using ≥5% unintentional weight loss, body mass index, subjective assessment of muscle stores from the PG-SGA. Aetiologic criteria included self-reported reduced food intake and inflammation (metastatic disease). Machine learning approaches were applied to predict 30-day mortality and unplanned admission using models with and without muscle mass. Participants with missing data were excluded, leaving 2494 for analysis [49.6% male, mean (SD) age: 62.3 (14.2) years]. Malnutrition prevalence was 19.5% and 17.5% when muscle mass was included and excluded, respectively. However, 48 (10%) of malnourished participants were missed if muscle mass was excluded. For the nine GLIM combinations that excluded low muscle mass the most important combinations to predict mortality were (1) weight loss and inflammation and (2) weight loss and reduced food intake. Machine learning metrics were similar in models excluding or including muscle mass to predict mortality (average accuracy: 84% vs. 88%; average sensitivity: 41% vs. 38%; average specificity: 85% vs. 89%). Weight loss and reduced food intake was the most important combination to predict unplanned hospital admission. Machine learning metrics were almost identical in models excluding or including muscle mass to predict unplanned hospital admission, with small differences observed only if reported to one decimal place (average accuracy: 77% vs. 77%; average sensitivity: 29% vs. 29%; average specificity: 84% vs. 84%). Our results indicate predictive ability is maintained, although the ability to identify all malnourished patients is compromised, when muscle mass is excluded from the GLIM diagnosis. This has important implications for assessment in health services where equipment to assess muscle mass is not available. Our findings support the robustness of the GLIM approach and an ability to apply some flexibility in excluding certain phenotypic or aetiologic components if necessary, although some cases will be missed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Equipment to assess muscle mass is not available in all health services. Yet we have limited understanding of whether applying the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria without an assessment of muscle mass affects the ability to predict adverse outcomes. This study used machine learning to determine which combinations of GLIM phenotypic and etiologic criteria are most important for the prediction of 30-day mortality and unplanned admission using combinations including and excluding low muscle mass.
METHODS
In a cohort of 2801 participants from two cancer malnutrition point prevalence studies, we applied the GLIM criteria with and without muscle mass. Phenotypic criteria were assessed using ≥5% unintentional weight loss, body mass index, subjective assessment of muscle stores from the PG-SGA. Aetiologic criteria included self-reported reduced food intake and inflammation (metastatic disease). Machine learning approaches were applied to predict 30-day mortality and unplanned admission using models with and without muscle mass.
RESULTS
Participants with missing data were excluded, leaving 2494 for analysis [49.6% male, mean (SD) age: 62.3 (14.2) years]. Malnutrition prevalence was 19.5% and 17.5% when muscle mass was included and excluded, respectively. However, 48 (10%) of malnourished participants were missed if muscle mass was excluded. For the nine GLIM combinations that excluded low muscle mass the most important combinations to predict mortality were (1) weight loss and inflammation and (2) weight loss and reduced food intake. Machine learning metrics were similar in models excluding or including muscle mass to predict mortality (average accuracy: 84% vs. 88%; average sensitivity: 41% vs. 38%; average specificity: 85% vs. 89%). Weight loss and reduced food intake was the most important combination to predict unplanned hospital admission. Machine learning metrics were almost identical in models excluding or including muscle mass to predict unplanned hospital admission, with small differences observed only if reported to one decimal place (average accuracy: 77% vs. 77%; average sensitivity: 29% vs. 29%; average specificity: 84% vs. 84%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate predictive ability is maintained, although the ability to identify all malnourished patients is compromised, when muscle mass is excluded from the GLIM diagnosis. This has important implications for assessment in health services where equipment to assess muscle mass is not available. Our findings support the robustness of the GLIM approach and an ability to apply some flexibility in excluding certain phenotypic or aetiologic components if necessary, although some cases will be missed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37259678
doi: 10.1002/jcsm.13259
pmc: PMC10401541
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1815-1823Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders.
Références
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2014 Feb;38(2):196-204
pubmed: 24748626
Clin Nutr. 2020 Sep;39(9):2872-2880
pubmed: 32563597
Cent Eur J Oper Res. 2018;26(1):135-159
pubmed: 29375266
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2003;12(3):257-60
pubmed: 14505986
Nutrition. 1999 Jun;15(6):458-64
pubmed: 10378201
Clin Nutr. 2019 Feb;38(1):1-9
pubmed: 30181091
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Aug;56(8):779-85
pubmed: 12122555
Clin Nutr. 2022 May;41(5):1102-1111
pubmed: 35413572
Nutr Diet. 2020 Sep;77(4):416-425
pubmed: 32803904
Nutrients. 2019 Sep 01;11(9):
pubmed: 31480635
Clin Nutr. 2021 Apr;40(4):2188-2199
pubmed: 33069510
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2021 Dec;12(6):2187-2198
pubmed: 34676673
Clin Nutr. 2019 Apr;38(2):644-651
pubmed: 29789167
Lancet Oncol. 2008 Jul;9(7):629-35
pubmed: 18539529
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020 Oct;11(5):1200-1211
pubmed: 32657045
Br J Cancer. 2010 Mar 16;102(6):966-71
pubmed: 20160725
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2023 Aug;14(4):1815-1823
pubmed: 37259678
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Apr 20;34(12):1339-44
pubmed: 26903572
Nutrition. 1996 Jan;12(1 Suppl):S15-9
pubmed: 8850213
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2021 Dec;12(6):2259-2261
pubmed: 34904399
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Apr;91(4):1133S-1137S
pubmed: 20164322
Nutrients. 2020 Nov 13;12(11):
pubmed: 33203000
Clin Nutr. 2021 Jun;40(6):4201-4208
pubmed: 33583658
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2021 Mar;45(3):607-617
pubmed: 32386328
Nutrition. 2021 Apr;84:111102
pubmed: 33453621