Diagnostic significance of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compile existing evidence on the significance of the NLR in predicting endometriosis in order to aid clinical decision-making and outcomes. METHODS: We searched ProQuest, Web of Science, and PubMed for related studies published before January 2, 2023. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported for each outcome. Because a significant level of heterogeneity was found, we used the random-effects model to calculate pooled effects. We used Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for quality assessment. RESULTS: Overall, 18 article with were included in the analysis. A random-effect model revealed that patients with endometriosis had elevated levels of NLR compared to healthy controls (SMD = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.25, P < 0.001). Patients with endometriosis had elevated levels of NLR compared to those with other benign tumors (SMD = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.17 to 1.53, P = 0.014). In addition, NLR level of patients with stage III and IV endometriosis was not different from that of patients with stage I and II endometrioma (SMD = 0.30, 95% CI = -0.14 to 0.74, P = 0.18). However, NLR level was not different between endometriosis patients with and without peritoneal lesions (SMD = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.34to 0.10, P = 0.28), between patients with and without endometrioma (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI = -0.15 to 0.55, P = 0.26) and between endometriosis patients with and without deep lesions (SMD = 0.04, 95% CI = -0.20 to 0.28, P = 0.72). The pooled sensitivity of NLR was 0.67 (95% CI = 0.60-0.73), and the pooled specificity was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.62-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: NLR might be utilized in clinics as a possible predictor to help clinicians diagnose endometriosis in affected women.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| 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 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".