Background:Elevation of the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been shown to be an indicator of poor prognosis in many malignancies including recurrent glioblastoma multiforme.Objectives:This study was aimed at assessing if the NLR and other leukocyte counts and indices were deranged in treatment-naïve patients with primary brain tumors when compared with an age-matched healthy control group.Materials and Methods:This was a prospective comparative clinical observational study by design. A healthy control population was compared with treatment-naïve patients diagnosed with intra- and extraaxial brain tumors. Leukocyte counts (neutrophil, lymphocyte, monocyte, eosinophil, and basophil counts) as well as leukocyte ratios such as the NLR and the monocyte to lymphocyte ratio (MLR) were calculated. We also evaluated if the counts and indices were related to the tumor volume.Results:In all patients with tumors, the platelet and neutrophil counts were elevated when compared to the controls. In contrast, monocyte counts and the MLR were found to be decreased in patients with tumors when compared to the controls. The subset of patients with glioblastoma showed a significant increase in NLR when compared to the controls.Conclusions:Significant changes in the neutrophil, monocyte, and platelet counts as well as NLR and MLR were observed. Prospective longitudinal studies are required to determine the prognostic and therapeutic implications of these findings.

G1, group 1G2, group 2G3, group 3G4, group 4IFCM, interfield citation metric.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background and objectiveThere is a paucity of information regarding the concordance of traditional metrics across publicly searchable databases and about the correlation between alternative and traditional metrics for neurosurgical authors. In this study, we aimed to assess the congruence between traditional metrics reported across Google Scholar (GS), Scopus (Sc), and ResearchGate (RG). We also aimed to establish the mathematical correlation between traditional metrics and alternative metrics provided by ResearchGate. MethodsAuthor names listed on papers published in the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) in 2019 were collated.Traditional metrics [number of publications (NP), number of citations (NC), and author H-indices (AHi)] and alternative metrics (RG score, Research Interest score, etc. from RG and the GS i10-index) were also collected from publicly searchable author profiles. The concordance between the traditional metrics across the three databases was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman (BA) plots. The mathematical relation between the traditional and alternative metrics was analyzed. ResultsThe AHi showed excellent agreement across the three databases studied. The level of agreement for NP and NC was good at lower median counts. At higher median counts, we found an increase in disagreement, especially for NP. The RG score, number of followers on RG, and Research Interest score independently predicted NC and AHi with a reasonable degree of accuracy. ConclusionsA composite author-level matrix with AHi, RG score, Research Interest score, and the number of RG followers could be used to generate an "Impact Matrix" to describe the scholarly and real-world impact of a clinician's work.

No abstract