Meta-analysis of differences in neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio between hypertensive and non-hypertensive individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study systematically reviewed the evidence regarding differences in the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) level between hypertensive and normotensive individuals as well as between patients with dipper and non-dipper hypertension (HTN). PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to 20 December 2021. This was done without any limitation with regard to date, publication, or language. Pooled weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were reported. We assessed the quality of studies based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). In total, 21 studies were included in our study. There was a significant increase in NLR levels for the hypertensive group in comparison to the control group (WMD = 0.40, 95%CI = 0.22-0.57, P < 0.0001). In addition, the NLR levels were higher in the non-dipper than in the dipper group (WMD = 0.58, 95%CI = 0.19-0.97, P = 0.003). Our findings showed that hypertensive patients had higher level of NLR than normotensive individuals.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".