PS1577 PLATELET COUNT AND MEAN PLATELET VOLUME IN ACUTE STROKE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META‐ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Changes of platelet count (PC) and mean platelet volume (MPV) could be a marker or a predictor of acute stroke (AS). Aims: We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the published literature on the reporting of MPV and PC in AS. Methods: Medline, EBSCOhost, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar and Scopus were searched for studies. Studies were included in accordance with Patient Population or Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Setting (PICOS) framework. The PRISMA strategy was used to report findings. Risk of bias was assessed with Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. The inclusion criteria were case‐control or cross‐sectional studies, individuals suffered an acute stroke, with fatal or non‐fatal stroke outcomes. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated with a confidence interval of 95% (95% CI). Results: We included 32 eligible articles retrieved from the literature. PC was significantly lower in AS patients [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.30, (95%CI: 0.49–0.11), N = 2492, P = 0.002] compared with controls (N = 3615). The MPV was significantly higher [SMD = 0.51, (95%CI: 0.27–0.74), N = 2413, P < 0.001] compared with controls (N = 3621). Subgroup analyses showed significantly lower PC in both ischemic stroke (Difference SMD = 0.18, 95%CI: 0.35‐0.01) and hemorrhagic stroke (0.94, 1.62–0.25), but only samples by citrate anticoagulant showed significantly lower result for patients compared to controls (0.36, 0.68–0.04). Ischemic stroke patients had higher MPV (0.55, 0.29–0.81), and samples by EDTA anticoagulant showed significantly higher result for patients compared to controls (0.79, 0.49–1.10). Summary/Conclusion: PC and MPV appeared to be significantly different between patients with AS and control populations. MPV was significantly higher in ischemic stroke and PC was significantly lower in both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. It is advisable to pay attention to the type of anticoagulant for hematology analyses in AS. Our results highlight the potential predictive role of PC and MPV in the occurrence of stroke.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".