Diagnostic Value of Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Against Other Biomarkers in Children With Appendicitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate diagnostic value of monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio as a novel biomarker in children with appendicitis and to compare with other biomarkers. METHODS: A total of 683 children were included in this retrospective study. Patients were categorized as acute appendicitis (AA, n = 254), perforated appendicitis (PA, n = 82), nonspecific abdominal pain (NAP, n = 197), and control (n = 150). The groups were compared for demographics, duration of symptoms, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), white blood cell count, neutrophil percentage (NP), C-reactive protein (CRP), mean platelet volume, and sodium level. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between all groups for MLR, PLR, and CRP. White blood cell count, NP, and NLR were significantly increased in patients with appendicitis, but there was no significant difference in the differential diagnosis between PA and AA. Sodium levels significantly decreased in patients with appendicitis. No statistically significance was determined between all groups in term of mean platelet volume. Among the biomarkers, MLR showed the highest diagnostic value (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve = 0.798) for AA, while CRP showed excellent diagnostic value (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve = 0.897) for PA. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study showing that MLR is a valuable parameter to differentiate patients with and without appendicitis. White blood cell, NP, and NLR are also useful parameters. On the other hand, an increased CRP level and hyponatremia are indicators of PA.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".