Association of white blood cell parameters with metabolic syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 168,000 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leukocyte parameters are predicted to be affected in patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the association between white blood cell parameters (WBC) in people with and without MetS. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched according to the study protocol. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of leukocyte markers between individuals with and without MetS were pooled using an inverse variance model. Additionally, a subgroup analysis by sex was performed where possible. Methodological quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Of 6068 articles identified, 63 were eligible for the study. Compared to controls, individuals with MetS showed significantly higher concentrations of total leukocyte count (SMD [95% CI]: 0.60 [0.55-0.65]; P < .00001; I2 = 100%), neutrophil counts (0.32 [0.28-0.37]; P < .00001; I2 = 99%), lymphocyte counts (0.15 [0.07-0.23]; P = .0004; I2 = 100%), basophil counts (0.01 [0.00-0.02]; P = .02; I2 = 98%), monocyte counts (0.05 [0.02-0.09]; P = .003; I2 = 99%), and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (0.24 [0.15-0.33]; P < .00001; I2 = 98%). There were no significant differences in the eosinophil count (0.02 [-0.01 to 0.05]; P = .19; I2 = 96%) and monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (0.06 [-0.05 to 0.17]; P = .27; I2 = 100%) between patients with and without MetS, however, the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (0.52 [-0.81 to -0.23]; P = .0005; I2 = 52%) tended to be significantly lower in patients with MetS. CONCLUSION: Biomarkers such as total leukocyte count, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, basophil count, monocyte count and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio are associated with higher levels in patients in MetS and thus can potentially be used for early detection of MetS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".