[Early white blood cell count in predicting mortality after acute paraquat poisoning: a Meta-analysis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of early white blood cell count (WBC) in patient of acute paraquat poisoning. METHODS: The literatures about the studies on early WBC and prognosis after paraquat poisoning published in journals at home and abroad were searched. The Chinese literature database contained CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedicine Database (CBM), and the journals were limited to the core journals. The foreign language database included PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library clinical controlled trial database. The retrieval date was from the initial publication to April 22nd in 2019, without the limitation of languages. Two researchers independently extracted literature information, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate literature quality. The odds ratio (OR), sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) were combined and analyzed through the Stata 15.0 software to evaluate the predictive value of early WBC after acute paraquat poisoning. Publication bias was analyzed by Deeks funnel graph. RESULTS: = 43.5%, P > 0.05). The OR and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of the literature was combined through the fixed effect model. The Meta-analysis results were statistically significant (OR = 18.63, 95%CI = 13.63-25.48, P < 0.001), suggesting that the WBC was significantly correlated with the mortality of patients. The combined sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.75 (95%CI = 0.66-0.82), 0.85 (95%CI = 0.80-0.90), 5.14 (95%CI = 3.86-6.86), 0.29 (95%CI = 0.22-0.39), 17.53 (95%CI = 12.23-25.13) respectively, and the area under the SROC of the WBC was 0.88 (95%CI = 0.85-0.91). Deeks funnel plot was symmetrical (P = 0.21), and there was no obvious publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: The early WBC has a certain predictive value for the prognosis of acute paraquat poisoning patients.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".