The Relationship Between Mean Platelet Volume and Fasting Plasma Glucose and HbA1c Levels in a Large Cohort of Unselected Health Check-Up Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Larger platelets are more active and mean platelet volume (MPV) is an indicator of platelet activation and an independent risk factor of cardiovascular diseases. While MPV is reported to be higher in diabetic patients, the relationship between MPV and glycemic parameters in general population remains inconclusive. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we studied relationship between MPV and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c levels in 38,204 unselected participants of general health check-up aged 20 years or older in the year of 2014 who were considered to be representative of the general population. Individuals with known diabetes, coronary artery disease and/or cerebrovascular disease who were on drug therapy and those with platelet counts below 100 × 10 9 /L or above 400 × 10 9 /L were excluded. Results: The mean age of the individuals was 52.3 ± 12.1 years and 46.1% were male. There were positive associations between MPV and both FPG (r = 0.066; P < 0.001) and HbA1c (r = 0.025; P < 0.001) levels when all individuals were analyzed as a whole. While the association was only marginal in individuals with HbA1c levels below 6.5% (r = 0.009; P = 0.068), it was significant in those with HbA1c ? 6.5% (r = 0.138; P < 0.001). When the individuals were categorized into four groups according to the HbA1c values: HbA1c < 5.5%, 5.5% ? HbA1c < 6.0%, 6.0% ? HbA1c < 6.5%, and HbA1c ? 6.5%, the mean MPV was virtually same among groups with HbA1c level < 6.5% and that of the individuals with HbA1c ? 6.5 was significantly higher than groups with lower HbA1c levels. Multivariate analyses adjusted with age and sex showed the same results. Conclusion: FPG and HbA1c appeared to be associated with MPV in unselected health check-up participants; however, the association between glycemic state and MPV was apparent only in individuals with impaired glycemic control and only marginal in those with normal glycemic control. The clinical significance of the associations warrants further study. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10(4):345-350 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3361w
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".