Peripheral blood monocyte count and outcomes in patients with interstitial lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Peripheral blood monocyte counts have been associated with poor outcomes in interstitial lung disease (ILD). However, studies are limited by variable biomarker thresholds, analytic approaches and heterogenous populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis characterised the relationship between monocytes and clinical outcomes in ILD. Methods Electronic database searches were performed. Two reviewers screened abstracts and extracted data. Pooled estimates (hazard ratios (HRs)) of monocyte count thresholds were calculated for their association with mortality using ≥0.6×10 9 and >0.9×10 9 cells·L −1 for unadjusted models and ≥0.95×10 9 cells·L −1 for adjusted models, using random effects, with heterogeneity and bias assessed. Disease progression associated with monocytes >0.9×10 9 cells·L −1 was also calculated. Results Of 3279 abstracts, 13 were included in the systematic review and eight in the meta-analysis. The pooled unadjusted HR for mortality for monocyte counts ≥0.6×10 9 cells·L −1 was 1.71 (95% CI 1.34–2.19, p<0.001, I 2 =0%) and for monocyte counts >0.90×10 9 cells·L −1 it was 2.44 (95% CI 1.53–3.87, p=0.0002, I 2 =52%). The pooled adjusted HR for mortality for monocyte counts ≥0.95×10 9 cells·L −1 was 1.93 (95% CI 1.24–3.01, p=0.0038 I 2 =69%). The pooled HR for disease progression associated with increased monocyte counts was 1.83 (95% CI 1.40–2.39, p<0.0001, I 2 =28%). Conclusions Peripheral blood monocyte counts were associated with an increased risk of mortality and disease progression in patients with ILD.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it