MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416301220 · doi:10.3389/fped.2025.1657314

Hematological parameters of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants: a meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4416301220 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hongyu Li, Jia Fan, Huaidong Du, Jihong Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchopulmonary dysplasiaGestational ageDysplasiaMEDLINENeonatal intensive care unit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) represents the most widespread and severe form of chronic pulmonary disease in preterm infants. Studies have revealed an association between BPD and hematological parameters (HPs); however, the findings are inconsistent. Objectives: This study utilized a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the association. Methods: The Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed were retrieved up to May 4, 2024, with an update on April 10, 2025. Studies investigating the correlation between HPs and BPD in preterm infants were included. This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the studies was evaluated via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Stata 18 and MetaDisc were utilized for statistical analysis. Results: EU) count, hemoglobin (HGB), monocyte count, hematocrit (HCT), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), red blood cell (RBC) count, platelet (PLT) count, and systemic inflammatory response index (SIRI). Further correlation analysis and effect size evaluation revealed that, while some parameters differed between groups, the association between key parameters and BPD risk was not significant. Specifically, the odds ratios (ORs) for HCT (OR = 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.11 to 2.77), PLT (OR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.98-1.03), and HGB (OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 0.42-4.49) did not reach statistical significance, suggesting these three parameters may not be independent influencing factors for BPD risk. Concurrently, diagnostic performance analysis demonstrated limited discriminatory ability for NLR, with a receiver operating characteristic-area under the curve (ROC-AUC) of 0.670 (standard error [SE] = 0.054), and for PLT, with an ROC-AUC of 0.675 (SE = 0.067). Conclusions: The current study indicated significant differences in NEU, HGB, HCT, RBC, PLT, NLR, and SIRI between BPD and non-BPD patients, with elevated NEU, NLR, and SIRI and reduced HGB, HCT, RBC, and PLT. However, this study had its limitations. Further analysis requires more multicenter, large-sample prospective studies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024552716.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.067
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207