Mean platelet volume and neonatal sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Mean Platelet Volume in neonatal sepsis. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar and WHO (International Clinical Trials Register Platform) databases from inception using a structured algorithm. All observational studies were deemed eligible. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software and heterogeneity was assessed through subgroup and meta-regression analysis. Studies included in the meta-analysis were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale while studies used for the calculation of the diagnostic accuracy were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy tool. MPV levels were found significantly higher than in healthy neonates (SMD: 1.62, 95% CI 0.97–2.27 and <i>p</i> < 10<sup>−5</sup>). Subgroup analysis based on hematological analyzer, EDTA usage and venipuncture to analysis time below 120 min also showcased significantly higher SMD’s in neonates with sepsis than in healthy. Sensitivity and specificity of MPV in neonatal sepsis were found to be 0.675 (95% CI: 0.536–0.790) and 0.733 (95% CI: 0.589–0.840), respectively, at an optimal cutoff point of 9.28fL. MPV appears to have a fair diagnostic accuracy in sepsis investigation. Given its ready availability it may constitute an attractive adjunct for clinicians, especially in low-resource environments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 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 teacher head, 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".