Supplementary Material for: Association of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio with incidence and disease progression in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is widely regarded as a proxy for system inflammation. The previous study indicated that the NLR might be higher in Parkinson’s disease (PD) compared to healthy controls (HC). The study aimed to assess the role of system inflammation indicated by NLR in the incidence and progression of PD. Methods: We included participants from the longitudinal population-based cohort, UK Biobank, to analyze the association of NLR and the risk of PD. We conducted the Cox proportional hazards analyses as the primary analysis to determine the association between baseline NLR value and the risk of PD in UK Biobank. Then we further used data from a disease-specific longitudinal cohort, Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI), to evaluate the differences between individuals with higher PD risk, and early-stage PD patients in the values of NLR. Patients with PD were divided into two groups according to the median value of NLR (2.35). Linear mixed models (random intercept and random slope) were used to evaluate the relationship between the high/low NLR groups and the disease progression. Results: A number of 288837 participants from UK Biobank were included and 1429 were diagnosed with incident PD. Among them, higher NLR was associated with an increased risk of incident PD in HC (per SD increment hazard ratio [HR], 1.041; P < 0.001). A total of 349 early-stage PD patients, 438 individuals with higher PD risk, and 207 HC were included from PPMI. PD patients and individuals with higher PD risk had a significantly higher NLR compared to healthy controls. Higher NLR group was associated with a faster deterioration of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score in PD patients in two years (β [SE] = -0.225 [0.080], P = 0.005). Conclusion: In conclusion, increased NLR in HC was linked with a higher risk of incident PD, and higher NLR was associated with a faster cognitive decline in PD patients, which indicated that inflammation was involved in the incidence of PD and the cognitive decline in early-stage PD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.844 | 0.196 |
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".