Systemic immune-inflammation index as a potential biomarker of cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Several studies have investigated the value of the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) for predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the results were inconsistent. Therefore, a meta-analysis and systematic review were conducted to assess the correlation between SII and risk of CVD. Materials and methods Two investigators systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and CINAHL databases to identify all studies that examined the association between SII levels and CVD. The risk estimates of CVD for people with high SII compared to those with low SII levels and the weighted mean difference (WMD) between the CVD and control groups were pooled using fixed- or random-effects models based on the heterogeneity test. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias in eligible studies, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was applied to rate the certainty of evidence. Results A total of 13 studies with 152,996 participants were included for analysis. The overall pooled results showed that higher SII was significantly associated with an increased risk of CVD (HR = 1.39, 95%CI: 1.20–1.61, P < 0.001). This increased risk could be observed in almost all CVD subtypes, including ischemic stroke (HR = 1.31, 95%CI: 1.06–1.63, P = 0.013), hemorrhagic stroke (HR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.10–1.37, P < 0.001), myocardial infarction (HR = 1.11, 95%CI: 1.01–1.23, P = 0.027), and peripheral arterial disease (HR = 1.51, 95%CI: 1.18–1.93, P = 0.001). There were no significant but still similar trends in venous thrombosis (HR = 4.65, 95%CI: 0.66–32.71, P = 0.122), cerebral small vessel disease (HR = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.95–1.25, P = 0.233), and acute coronary syndrome (HR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.96–1.22, P = 0.200). Furthermore, the pooled results showed that SII levels at the onset of CVD were significantly higher than that in the general population (WMD = 355.2, 95%CI: 234.8–475.6, P < 0.001), which was consistent across different CVD subtypes. The GRADE assessment suggested that the quality of current evidence from observational studies was low or very low. Conclusion This study indicated that SII may be a potential biomarker for CVD development and elevated SII is associated with an increased risk of CVD. However, the quality of evidence is generally low. Additional well-designed studies are necessary to determine the optimal cutoff value and to characterize the benefited population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,043 | 0,037 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle