The Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in pulmonary hypertension: A systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this systematic review is to provide an overview of research that examined the relationship between pulmonary hypertension (PH) and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). METHODS: To identify the studies related to NLR, a search was done on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science with an end date of March 30th, 2023. A total of 25 studies were included in the review. These studies included a variety of pathologies that contribute to PH. We employed the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of studies. For all studies, a significance level of P˂0.05 was used. RESULTS: In patients with sarcoidosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, systemic sclerosis, chronic kidney disease, and congenital heart disease, NLR appears to be an independent predictor of PH. Also, it was frequently linked to the result, complications, and severity of the disease in PH patients. CONCLUSION: NLR may be utilized as a repeatable, inexpensive, and trustworthy proxy for the onset and severity of PH.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".