MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311185739 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2022.1023195

Correlations among peripheral blood markers, white matter hyperintensity, and cognitive function in patients with non-disabling ischemic cerebrovascular events

2022· article· en· W4311185739 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Binghan Li, Bingying Du, Zhengsheng Gu, Chenghao Wu, Yuhao Tan, Chenrui Song, Yawen Xu, Ge Yin, Xin Gao, Weisen Wang, Xu Sun, Xiaoying Bi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperintensityInternal medicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineWhite matterWhite blood cellLogistic regressionCardiologyGastroenterologyPsychologyMagnetic resonance imagingCognitive impairmentDiseaseRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Both inflammation and cerebral white matter injury are closely associated with vascular cognitive impairment (VCI). The aim of this study was to analyze the correlation between peripheral serological markers, white matter injury, and cognitive function in patients with non-disabling ischemic cerebrovascular events (NICE); to identify potential biological markers for the diagnosis and prediction of VCI; and to provide a basis for the early diagnosis and intervention of VCI. Methods We collected clinical data, along with demographic and medical history data, from 151 NICE patients. Fasting venous blood samples were collected. Based on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) after admission, we divided the patients into normal cognitive function (NCF) and VCI groups, and then classified them into mild white matter hyperintensity (mWMH) and severe white matter hyperintensity (sWMH) based on Fazekas scores. The differences in serological marker levels were compared between the cognitive function groups and the white matter hyperintensity groups. Binary logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to analyze the diagnostic predictive value of serological markers for VCI in patients with NICE and in the white matter hyperintensity subgroups. Results Among 151 patients with NICE, 95 were male and 56 were female. Lymphocyte count (OR = 0.405, p = 0.010, 95% CI [0.201, 0.806]), red blood cell count (OR = 0.433, p = 0.010, 95% CI [0.228, 0.821]), and hemoglobin level (OR = 0.979, p = 0.046, 95% CI [0.958, 0.999]) were protective factors for cognitive function in patients with NICE. The sWMH group had a higher age, granulocyte/lymphoid ratio (NLR), and neutrophil percentage but a lower MoCA score, hemoglobin level, and lymphocyte count than the mWMH group. In the mWMH group, lymphocyte count (AUC = 0.713, p = 0.003, 95% CI [0.593, 0.833]) had an acceptable predictive value for the diagnosis of VCI, whereas white blood cell count (AUC = 0.672, p = 0.011, 95% CI [0.545, 0.799]), red blood cell count (AUC = 0.665, p = 0.014, 95% CI [0.545, 0.784]), and hemoglobin level (AUC = 0.634, p = 0.047, 95% CI [0.502, 0.765]) had marginal predictive value for the diagnosis of VCI. In the sWMH group, no significant differences were found in serological markers between the NCF and VCI groups. Conclusion Lymphocyte count, red blood cell count, and hemoglobin level were independent protective factors for cognitive function in patients with NICE; they can be used as potential biological markers to distinguish VCI in patients with NICE and are applicable to subgroups of patients with mWMH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207