4.0 Article

Neutrophil/lymphocyte, platelet/lymphocyte and monocyte/lymphocyte ratios in schizophrenia

期刊

AUSTRALASIAN PSYCHIATRY
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 95-99

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/10398562211022753

关键词

schizophrenia; inflammation; neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio; platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81761128021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the relationship between schizophrenia and inflammation using Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR). The results showed significant differences in these ratios between patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls in the Chinese population, supporting the inflammatory hypothesis of schizophrenia.
Objective: Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) have been used as markers of inflammation in mental illness. However, these indices have not been widely used in schizophrenia research in Chinese participants. Our aim was to use these ratios to explore the relationship between schizophrenia and inflammation. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we collected total blood cell counts of 549 patients with schizophrenia and 930 healthy controls at Beijing Huilongguan Hospital in October 2019. We analyzed the subjects' platelet, lymphocyte, monocyte, and neutrophil counts; compared the calculated NLR, MLR, and PLR between patients and healthy controls; and evaluated the correlations with age and gender. Results: Platelet and lymphocyte counts were significantly lower, while NLR and MLR were significantly higher, in patients with schizophrenia compared to healthy controls. Additionally, monocyte count, lymphocyte count, MLR, and NLR were different between male and female subjects. Conclusion: This study supports the inflammatory hypothesis of schizophrenia in the Chinese population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据