Association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and hematoma expansion in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hematoma expansion (HE) typically portends a poor prognosis in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Several radiographic and laboratory values have been proposed as predictive markers of HE. AIM To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and HE in ICH. A secondary outcome examined was the association of NLR and perihematomal (PHE) growth. METHODS Three databases were searched (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane) for studies evaluating the effect of NLR on HE and PHE growth. The inverse variance method was applied to estimate an overall effect for each specific outcome by combining weighted averages of the individual studies’ estimates of the logarithm odds ratio (OR). Given heterogeneity of the studies, a random effect was applied. Risk of bias was analyzed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42024549924). RESULTS Eleven retrospective cohort studies involving 2953 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among those, HE was investigated in eight studies, whereas PHE growth was evaluated in three. Blood sample was obtained on admission in ten studies, and at 24 hours in one study. There was no consensus on cut-off value among the studies. NLR was found to be significantly associated with higher odds of HE (OR = 1.09, 95%CI: 1.04-1.15, I 2 = 86%, P < 0.01), and PHE growth (OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.19-1.38, I 2 = 0%, P < 0.01). Qualitative analysis of each outcome revealed overall moderate risk of bias mainly due to lack of control for systemic confounders. CONCLUSION The available literature suggests that a possible association may exist between NLR on admission and HE, and PHE growth. Future studies controlled for systemic confounders should be designed to consolidate this finding. If confirmed, NLR could be added as a readily available and inexpensive biomarker to identify a subgroup of patients at higher risk of developing HE.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".