Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictive biomarker for hyperprogressive disease mediated by immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) is a novel pattern of paradoxically rapid tumor progression, which often leads to early death, mostly in the first 2 months of treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Currently, there is no validated biomarker to assess patients at risk of HPD. Aim The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the predictive value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in HPD and establish a reliable variable to support clinicians in defining personalized treatment strategies. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published before 31 December 2023. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of eligible studies. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects or a fixed-effects model to evaluate the association between the NLR and the risk of HPD. Results A total of 17 studies with 2,964 patients were included for meta-analysis. The incidence of HPD across different types of tumors ranged from 6.3% to 35.6%. In the pooled analysis of the NLR and HPD, we identified that the NLR significantly associated with the risk of HPD (OR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.91; p = 0.01) ( I 2 = 52%, p = 0.007). Conclusion In the future, the NLR may serve as a remarkable biomarker for predicting the risk of HPD in clinical practice.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".