3-3ELEVATED MEAN PLATELET VOLUME AND RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS: A META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In comparison to smaller ones, larger platelets indicate altered reactivity and aggregation. Mean platelet volume (MPV), knowingly used to assess the size, is significantly elevated in hypertension. High MPV is equivalent to a high risk of thrombotic events. Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is one of the most common extracardiac complications of hypertension, which may lead to vision loss. Assessment of MPV may help to determine the development of the disease. Objective: We aimed to analyze if elevated MPV was associated with the incident of RVO, particularly in hypertensive patients. Method: A literature search was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane, and Science Direct for primary studies. The abstracts and full text were scanned for potentially relevant articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The quality assessment was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) for case-control studies. We analyzed the data using STATA 14.1. Result: Four studies (363 RVO patients and 256 controls) were incorporated into this meta-analysis. Due to the high heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled SMD and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Results have indicated significant increase of MPV levels (SMD = 1.008, 95% CI 0.819–1.197, P < 0.001) and insignificant increase of platelet count levels (SMD = 0.149, 95% CI 0.016–0.313, P = 0.076) in hypertensive patients with RVO compared to controls. Conclusion: We found that MPV is strongly associated with the presence of RVO in hypertensive patients. Further studies are required to ascertain the potential clinical use of this simple and relatively inexpensive marker in RVO diagnosis.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.065 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".