Prognostic role of platelet to lymphocyte ratio in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
// Yongzhao Zhao 1, * , Guangyan Si 2, * , Fengshang Zhu 3, * , Jialiang Hui 4, * , Shangli Cai 5 , Chenshen Huang 1 , Sijin Cheng 1 , Abdel Hamid Fathy 1 , Yi Xiang 4 , Jing Li 3 1 School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China 2 Department of Interventional Radiology, Affiliated Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China 3 Department of Gastroenterology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China 4 Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China 5 Mental Health Institute of the Second Xiangya Hospital, National Technology Institute of Psychiatry, Key Laboratory of Psychiatry and Mental Health of Hunan Province, Central South University, Hunan, China * These authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence to: Jing Li, email: lijingshengping@163.com Keywords: platelet to lymphocyte ratio, hepatocellular carcinoma, prognostic, overall survival Received: September 09, 2016 Accepted: January 29, 2017 Published: February 11, 2017 ABSTRACT Background and Aims: Several studies were conducted to explore the prognostic significance of platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), however, contradictory results across most reports were documented. To this end, we present a systematic review that aims to summarize the prognostic significance of PLR in patients with HCC. Results: A total of 10 studies involving a total of 2,315 patients were identified. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) of each included study was greater than or equal to 5. The results indicated that high PLR was significantly associated with a worse OS when compared to the low PLR (HR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.23−2.08, p = 0.0005; I 2 = 88%, p < 0.00001). Similar results were detected in the subgroup analysis of the analysis model, cut-off value, ethnicity, sample size and therapy. However, no obvious correlation between the PLR and DFS/RFS in patients with HCC was observed (HR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.87−1.67, p = 0.26; I 2 = 61%, p = 0.07). Materials and Methods: A complete literature search in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase database was performed. Retrospective and prospective studies focusing on the role of PLR on the prognosis in HCC were all deemed as “suitable” for our scope. The endpoints determined were: the overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and the progress free survival (PFS). Conclusions: The study revealed that high PLR is an unfavorable predictor of OS in patients with HCC, and high PLR is a promising prognostic biomarker for HCC, especially for patients in Asia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".