MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390636381 · doi:10.1186/s12893-023-02292-0

Systematic review of the significance of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgeries

2024· article· en· W4390636381 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarvin Es haghi, Monireh Khanzadeh, Shirin Sarejloo, Fariba Mirakhori, Jairo Hernandez, Emma Dioso, Michael Goutnik, Brandon Lucke‐Wold, Arshin Ghaedi, Shokoufeh Khanzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisNeutrophil to lymphocyte ratioConfidence intervalStrictly standardized mean differenceSubgroup analysisInternal medicineGastroenterologyLymphocyteBiomarkerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The inflammatory response is thought to be a critical initiator of epigenetic alterations. The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), a biomarker of inflammation, is computed by dividing the number of neutrophils by the number of lymphocytes. The primary goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the pre-operative NLR of gastrointestinal surgery patients who had an anastomotic leak (AL) in comparison to those who did not AL. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search for relevant papers published before May 4, 2022, using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was pooled in meta-analysis to yield a summary estimate. We utilized the random-effects model to create pooled effects since we discovered a substantial heterogeneity level. For evaluating quality, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was implemented. RESULTS: The research comprised 12 studies with a total of 2940 individuals who had GI operations, 353 of whom went on to develop AL. We discovered that patients who had GI surgeries and acquired AL had significantly higher NLR levels than those who did not (random-effects model: SMD = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.11-1.38, p = 0.02). Patients with AL showed significantly higher NLR levels than control group in retrospective studies (SMD = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.20-1.66, p=0.01) but not in prospective studies (SMD = - 0.11, 95% CI = - 0.65-0.43, p = 0.69), according to the subgroup analysis based on research design. Subgroup analysis based on ethnicity yielded that white patients with AL exhibited significantly higher NLR values than the control group (SMD = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.01-2.68, p = 0.04) but this result was not applied to East Asian patients (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = -0.13-0.41, p = 0.29). CONCLUSION: Our research suggests a potential association between preoperative NLR and postoperative AL. However, it is essential to acknowledge the variability in the findings, with significantly higher NLR levels observed in retrospective studies and among white patients, but not consistently replicated in prospective studies and among East Asian patients. Further investigations with larger and more diverse cohorts are warranted to validate these findings and explore potential factors contributing to the observed discrepancies.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.018
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC SurgerySame topicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease PrognosisFrench-language works237,207