Prognostic Role of Lymphocyte/Monocyte Ratio in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a B-lymphoproliferative disease with varying clinical characteristics, which occurs mostly in older ages. In studies from literature, we see that different parameters are examined to determine the prognosis of CLL. The main purpose of our study is to determine the relationship of lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR) value in CLL, which has been previously shown to be a prognostic factor in various solid organ tumors and some hematological malignancies. METHODS: A total of 173 patients who were followed up between 2005 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The diagnostic age, gender, laboratory, absolute lymphocyte and monocyte count, LMR and overall survival (OS), treatment and responses, recurrence, cytogenetic subtype and mortality rates were examined. RESULTS: The median LMR was 26.7 and it was considered as cut-off value of 26. A positive correlation was found between LMR and Rai Stage. LMR was significantly higher in patients who have an indication for treatment or who died. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, in CLL, LMR has been shown to be over 26 in advanced stages, in relapse or with indication of a treatment. With the increase of LMR, it was found that survival and disease-free gap decreased.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".