Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40242435›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025

Dynamic risk stratification and treatment optimization in sepsis: the role of NLPR.

Qiqi Chen, Ming Zhang, Yuxin Xia, Ya Deng, Yanna Yang, Lili Dai, Hongxia Niu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Qiqi Chen *Department of Emergency, Capital Medical University Electric Power Teaching Hospital (State Grid Corporation of China Beijing Electric Power Hospital), Beijing, China.
Ming Zhang *Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Capital Medical University Electric Power Teaching Hospital (State Grid Corporation of China Beijing Electric Power Hospital), Beijing, China.
Yuxin XiaDepartment of Emergency, Capital Medical University Electric Power Teaching Hospital (State Grid Corporation of China Beijing Electric Power Hospital), Beijing, China.
Ya DengDepartment of Emergency, Capital Medical University Electric Power Teaching Hospital (State Grid Corporation of China Beijing Electric Power Hospital), Beijing, China.
Yanna YangDepartment of Emergency, Capital Medical University Electric Power Teaching Hospital (State Grid Corporation of China Beijing Electric Power Hospital), Beijing, China.
Lili DaiDepartment of Emergency, Capital Medical University Electric Power Teaching Hospital (State Grid Corporation of China Beijing Electric Power Hospital), Beijing, China.
Hongxia NiuDepartment of Emergency, Capital Medical University Electric Power Teaching Hospital (State Grid Corporation of China Beijing Electric Power Hospital), Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Sepsis, characterized by immune dysregulation, inflammatory cascades, and coagulation dysfunction, remains a global health challenge with high mortality, particularly in patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). Existing prognostic tools, such as SOFA and APACHE II scores, are limited by complexity and lack of real-time monitoring, necessitating simple and reliable biomarkers for risk stratification and individualized management. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte-to-platelet ratio (NLPR) for mortality in sepsis patients and explore its potential utility in dynamic risk stratification and treatment optimization. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the MIMIC-IV database (v3.1), including adult sepsis patients meeting Sepsis-3.0 criteria. NLPR was calculated based on neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet counts within 24 h of admission. Patients were stratified into quartiles (Q1-Q4) based on NLPR values. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox regression models, and restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis were performed to assess NLPR's association with 28-day, 90-day, and 365-day mortality. Subgroup analyses examined NLPR's performance in diverse clinical populations. Results: NLPR was a strong and independent predictor of mortality at all time points. Patients in the highest NLPR quartile (Q4) had significantly higher 28-day (28.22% vs. 12.64%), 90-day (36.82% vs. 18.06%), and 365-day (44.94% vs. 25.58%) mortality compared to the lowest quartile (Q1, all P < 0.001). Cox regression confirmed the independent association of high NLPR with mortality after adjusting for confounders such as age, gender, BMI, and SOFA scores. RCS analysis identified nonlinear relationships between NLPR and mortality, with critical thresholds (e.g.,NLPR = 6.5 for 365-day mortality) providing actionable targets for early risk identification. Subgroup analysis revealed consistent predictive performance across clinical populations, with amplified risks in younger patients, malnourished individuals, and those with acute kidney injury. Conclusion: NLPR is a simple, accessible, and robust biomarker for sepsis risk stratification, integrating inflammation and coagulation data. It complements traditional scoring systems, provides actionable thresholds for early intervention, and facilitates dynamic monitoring. These findings underscore NLPR's potential to improve clinical decision-making and outcomes in sepsis management, warranting validation in prospective multicenter studies.

Indexed as

MIMIC-IVmortalityNlpRprognostic biomarkerrisk stratificationsepsis

Identifiers

PMID40242435
PMCPMC11999927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.