# Applying the New Inflammation Criterion Impairs GLIM Validity in Hospitalized Patients with Acute Medical Conditions

## TL;DR

Updating the inflammation criterion in GLIM criteria for hospitalized patients reduces its effectiveness in diagnosing malnutrition compared to the Subjective Global Assessment.

## Contribution

This study evaluates the impact of revised GLIM inflammation criteria on malnutrition diagnosis validity in hospitalized patients.

## Key findings

- Updating the inflammation criterion increased malnutrition prevalence from 41.7% to 52.2%.
- GLIM-I did not meet the 80% threshold for concurrent validity compared to SGA.
- SGA showed higher discriminative ability than both GLIM versions for predicting hospital stay.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) recently updated its inflammation criterion through a Delphi consensus to standardize its assessment. This study aimed to assess the impact of these new recommendations on the concurrent and predictive validity of the GLIM criteria in hospitalized medical patients. Methods: This post hoc analysis re-evaluated a previously published cohort of 119 hospitalized patients with acute medical conditions, originally assessed using the GLIM criteria and the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) as the reference standard. Inflammation was redefined according to the 2024 GLIM Delphi consensus, and the concurrent and predictive validity of the modified GLIM criteria (GLIM-I) were examined. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the discriminative ability of SGA, original GLIM, and GLIM-I to predict prolonged hospital stay. Results: With the updated inflammation definition, all patients met the etiologic criterion, increasing malnutrition prevalence from 41.7% to 52.2%. GLIM-I showed a sensitivity of 78.0% and specificity of 67.7% versus SGA, not reaching the predefined ≥80% threshold for concurrent validity. Predictive validity was maintained (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 3.40; 95% CI: 1.31–8.83). SGA achieved the highest discriminative ability (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.783; 95% CI: 0.693–0.874), significantly outperforming the original GLIM (AUC = 0.723; 95% CI: 0.616–0.830; p = 0.049). GLIM-I showed similar performance (AUC = 0.731; 95% CI: 0.620–0.843; p = 0.727). Conclusions: SGA should continue to be considered the method of choice for nutritional diagnosis in hospitalized medical patients. Further research is needed to determine how the new inflammation criteria influence the validity of the GLIM framework in other clinical contexts before their widespread implementation.