Back

Multidimensional nutritional assessment in Crohns disease: cross-sectional comparison of active disease and remission

Sarker, A.; Ghosh, C. K.; Chowdhury, P.

2026-06-15 gastroenterology
10.64898/2026.06.11.26355434 medRxiv
Show abstract

Malnutrition is common in Crohns disease (CD), and its assessment requires multiple tools. Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional status in a population with CD, predominantly characterized by metabolic phenotype, was inadequately reported. This study evaluated the nutritional status of CD patients using anthropometric, clinical, and biochemical measures and compared patients with active disease with those in remission. This cross-sectional study included 127 adults with CD: 63 with active disease and 64 in remission. Disease activity was classified using the Crohns Disease Activity Index, the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohns Disease, and magnetic resonance enterography. Nutritional assessment included body mass index (BMI), mid-upper arm circumference, calf circumference, triceps skinfold thickness, mid-arm muscle circumference, Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF), and biochemical markers including hemoglobin, serum iron, folate, vitamin B12, albumin, and zinc. Malnutrition was defined using the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. Overall, 47.2% of participants were malnourished. Malnutrition was significantly more frequent in active disease than in remission (81.0% vs. 14.1%, P<0.001). Patients with active CD had lower anthropometric indices, MNA-SF score, hemoglobin, serum iron, albumin, and zinc (all P<0.001), whereas folate and vitamin B12 did not differ significantly. BMI showed positive correlations with other anthropometric measures and MNA-SF score (r=0.854-0.914, all P<0.001), whereas correlations with biochemical parameters were weaker and disappeared after subgroup stratification. Overall, the findings indicate that malnutrition is highly prevalent in CD, particularly during active disease. Anthropometric measures and MNA-SF were strongly concordant, whereas biochemical markers were less consistent, supporting a multidimensional nutritional assessment approach in CD.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.6%
2
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.7%
3
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.8%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 14%
5.8%
5
American Journal of Gastroenterology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.6%
6
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
466 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.8%
8
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
9
Gastro Hep Advances
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
10
Journal of Cystic Fibrosis
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
11
Journal of Crohn's and Colitis
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
12
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
13
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
14
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.6%
15
Gastroenterology
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
16
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
17
Gut
40 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
18
Frontiers in Nutrition
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
19
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
20
Nutrients
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
21
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
22
Neurogastroenterology & Motility
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
23
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
24
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
109 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
25
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
26
Frontiers in Pharmacology
111 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
27
Aging
75 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
28
Microbial Cell Factories
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
29
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
30
The Journal of Nutrition
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%