Predictive value of lymphocyte-associated inflammation index in post-stroke cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The predictive role of the lymphocyte-associated inflammation index in post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) remains controversial. Therefore, we performed an updated meta-analysis to update the evidence. Methods This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Six databases were systematically searched from their inception to May 5, 2024. Two investigators independently conducted literature screening and data extraction for the included studies. Two investigators independently assessed the quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Combined effect sizes were calculated using weighted mean difference (WMD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was tested using the chi-square (χ2) test (Cochran’s Q) and index of inconsistency ( I 2 ), Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s regression test. Results This systematic review included a total of 16 studies, encompassing 3,406 patients. Meta-analysis revealed that neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) levels were significantly higher in the PSCI group compared to the non-PSCI group (WMD: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.40; p < 0.00001). Similarly, the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) levels were significantly higher in the PSCI group compared to the non-PSCI group (WMD: 16.80; 95% CI: 4.30, 29.29; p = 0.008). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups concerning hemoglobin, albumin, lymphocyte, and platelet (HALP) scores (WMD: -12.78; 95% CI: −25.95, 0.38; p = 0.06) and lymphocyte count (WMD: -0.13; 95% CI: −0.34, 0.07; p = 0.20). Conclusion Increased levels of PLR and NLR are strongly associated with the PSCI, which may serve as an effective tool for predicting PSCI. However, there is insufficient evidence to support a direct relationship between HALP scores, lymphocyte count, and PSCI. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , identifier CRD42023462232.
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 | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".