Prognostic value of platelet to lymphocyte ratio in patients with non-small cell lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The prognostic value of Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still indistinct. We conducted this study to assess the prognostic significance of pretreatment PLR in patients with unresectable NSCLC.Aim of the Work: To assess the prognostic significance of pre-treatment PLR in patients with NSCLC.Material and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 130 patients treated for NSCLC with definitive/palliative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in Ain-Shams Universit hospital, Clinical Oncology department between January 2014 and December 2016. Pre-treatment CBC was available for the 130 patients to calculate PLR by dividing the absolute platelet count by the absolute lymphocytic count.Results: Out of 130 patients with available pre-treatment complete blood picture, population age ranged from 23 to 87 years. Male to female ratio was 4.8:1. Adenocarcinoma presents 51% of cases. Unresectable stage II and stage III present 2% and 27% respectively, while Stage IV presents 69%. Using a cut-off value of 150, a statistically significant correlation between baseline PLR > 150 and presence of distant metastases was found (p = .043); with a trend towards less advanced stage disease among group of patients with baseline PLR < 150 (p = .064). High PLR > 150 was significantly associated with poor overall survival (OS) (median OS: 10.33 months; 95% CI: 6.23-14.42, compared to patients with PLR < 150; (median OS: 24.63 months, 95% CI:11.5-37.76, p = .008), but not PFS. In multivariate analysis, PLR < 150 was an independent good prognostic factor for OS; (HR = 0.549; 95% CI: 0.314-0.958; p = .035).Conclusion: High PLR is associated with poor OS in patients with unresectable NSCLC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".