Associations between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte/platelet-to-lymphocyte and recovery in sudden sensorineural hearing loss.

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL

Biomarkers in medicine Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-04 DOI:10.2217/bmm-2022-0729

Xinmei Huang, Xupei Ni, Jun Shen, Lihua Chen, Liying Xu, Xuxia Tang

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: This study investigated the nonlinear associations between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NLR)/platelet-to-lymphocyte (PLR) and recovery rates in sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL). Methods: Total of 244 SSNHL patients were included. The primary outcome was recovery rate. Results: A nonlinear association was detected between NLR and recovery rate using the LOWESS method, with a knot of 3. Patients with NLR ≥3 had a higher recovery rate than NLR <3. Using the linear-spline function, NLR was significantly associated with high recovery rate when NLR was <3. However, when NLR was ≥3, this association became nonsignificant. The trend test showed a similar result. PLR was not associated with recovery rate. Conclusion: The association between NLR and recovery rate is nonlinear, with a knot of around three. PLR is not associated with recovery rate.

查看原文本刊更多论文

中性粒细胞对淋巴细胞/血小板对淋巴细胞与突发性感音神经性听力损失恢复之间的关系。

目的：本研究探讨了中性粒细胞对淋巴细胞（NLR）/血小板对淋巴细胞（PLR）与突发性感音神经性听力损失（SSNHL）恢复率之间的非线性关系。研究方法共纳入 244 名 SSNHL 患者。主要结果是康复率。结果NLR≥3 的患者的康复率高于 NLR 结论：NLR 与康复率之间存在非线性关联：NLR 与康复率之间的关系是非线性的，其节点约为 3。PLR 与康复率无关。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Biomarkers in medicine 医学-医学：研究与实验

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

4.50%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Biomarkers are physical, functional or biochemical indicators of physiological or disease processes. These key indicators can provide vital information in determining disease prognosis, in predicting of response to therapies, adverse events and drug interactions, and in establishing baseline risk. The explosion of interest in biomarker research is driving the development of new predictive, diagnostic and prognostic products in modern medical practice, and biomarkers are also playing an increasingly important role in the discovery and development of new drugs. For the full utility of biomarkers to be realized, we require greater understanding of disease mechanisms, and the interplay between disease mechanisms, therapeutic interventions and the proposed biomarkers. However, in attempting to evaluate the pros and cons of biomarkers systematically, we are moving into new, challenging territory. Biomarkers in Medicine (ISSN 1752-0363) is a peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal delivering commentary and analysis on the advances in our understanding of biomarkers and their potential and actual applications in medicine. The journal facilitates translation of our research knowledge into the clinic to increase the effectiveness of medical practice. As the scientific rationale and regulatory acceptance for biomarkers in medicine and in drug development become more fully established, Biomarkers in Medicine provides the platform for all players in this increasingly vital area to communicate and debate all issues relating to the potential utility and applications. Each issue includes a diversity of content to provide rounded coverage for the research professional. Articles include Guest Editorials, Interviews, Reviews, Research Articles, Perspectives, Priority Paper Evaluations, Special Reports, Case Reports, Conference Reports and Company Profiles. Review coverage is divided into themed sections according to area of therapeutic utility with some issues including themed sections on an area of topical interest. Biomarkers in Medicine provides a platform for commentary and debate for all professionals with an interest in the identification of biomarkers, elucidation of their role and formalization and approval of their application in modern medicine. The audience for Biomarkers in Medicine includes academic and industrial researchers, clinicians, pathologists, clinical chemists and regulatory professionals.