全身炎症反应指数(SIRI)与自身免疫性脑炎 发病风险的相关性研究
Association of Systemic Inflammatory Response Index (SIRI) with the Risk of Autoimmune Encephalitis
摘要: 背景:自身免疫性脑炎(AE)是一种严重的神经免疫性疾病,其早期诊断仍面临挑战。本研究旨在探讨全身炎症反应指数(SIRI)、NLR、MLR、PLR与AE发病风险的相关性研究,并评估上述炎症指标对AE的预测价值。方法:共纳入130例AE患者及130例年龄、性别匹配的健康对照人群。采集所有受试者的外周血细胞计数,并计算SIRI、NLR、MLR及PLR。利用多因素logistic回归分析影响AE发病风险的独立危险因素,并通过受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线评估各炎症指标对AE的预测效能。结果:多因素logistic回归分析显示,SIRI是AE发病的独立危险因素(OR = 8.20, 95% CI: 2.08~32.42, p = 0.003)。ROC曲线分析表明,SIRI预测AE的曲线下面积(AUC)为0.797 (95% CI: 0.740~0.854),最佳临界值为1.073,特异度为93.85%,敏感度为63.08%。NLR也表现出良好的预测价值(AUC = 0.786),其敏感度为69.92%,特异度为90.77%。MLR与PLR的预测效能相对较低(AUC分别为0.748和0.722)。结论:SIRI是预测AE发病风险的可靠炎症指标,是具有高度特异性的独立危险因素,有助于AE的辅助识别与风险评估。
Abstract: Background: Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) is a severe neuroimmune disorder, and its early diagnosis remains challenging. This study aims to investigate the association between systemic inflammation response index (SIRI), NLR, MLR, PLR, and the risk of AE onset, and to evaluate the predictive value of these inflammatory indicators for AE. Methods: A total of 130 AE patients and 130 age- and gender-matched healthy controls were included in this study. Peripheral blood cell counts were collected from all subjects, and SIRI, NLR, MLR, and PLR were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for AE onset, and the predictive performance of each inflammatory indicator was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that SIRI is an independent risk factor for AE onset (OR = 8.20, 95% CI: 2.08~32.42, p = 0.003). ROC curve analysis indicated that the area under the curve (AUC) for SIRI in predicting AE was 0.797 (95% CI: 0.740~0.854), with an optimal cutoff value of 1.073, specificity of 93.85%, and sensitivity of 63.08%. NLR also demonstrated good predictive value (AUC = 0.786), with a sensitivity of 69.92% and specificity of 90.77%. The predictive performance of MLR and PLR was relatively lower (AUCs of 0.748 and 0.722, respectively). Conclusion: SIRI is a reliable inflammatory indicator for predicting the risk of AE onset, serving as an independent risk factor with high specificity, and can assist in the auxiliary identification and risk assessment of AE.
文章引用:周芯宇, 周振锋, 刘宗超. 全身炎症反应指数(SIRI)与自身免疫性脑炎 发病风险的相关性研究[J]. 临床医学进展, 2026, 16(2): 1941-1949. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2026.162589

1. 引言

自身免疫性脑炎(Autoimmune Encephalitis, AE)是一组由自身免疫机制介导的急性或亚急性脑炎[1],主要包括两大类,一类是针对抗神经元细胞表面或者突触蛋白(Neuronal Cell-Surface or Synaptic Protein)的自身抗体,如抗N-甲基-D-天冬氨酸受体(N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor, NMDAR)、抗富含亮氨酸胶质瘤失活蛋白1 (Leucine-Rich Glioma-Inactivated Protein 1, LGI1)和抗γ-氨基丁酸B型受体(γ-Amino Butyric Acid Type B Receptor, GABABR)抗体相关脑炎等[2] [3]。另一类为副肿瘤综合征(Paraneoplastic Syndrome, PNS)相关自身抗体所介导的脑炎,其抗体针对细胞内抗原,如Hu、Yo、CV2等[4]。AE的临床表现多样,包括癫痫发作、精神行为改变、认知障碍、意识障碍、言语障碍、运动功能障碍、不自主运动和自主神经功能障碍等[5]。该疾病部分患者进展迅速,可因难治性癫痫或中枢性呼吸衰竭等原因而危及生命[6]。目前,AE的诊断主要依赖特异性抗体检测[1],然而该方法耗时长、普及性有限,不利于早期干预,因此急需寻找更便捷的辅助诊断指标。

AE的发病机制复杂,其中以抗神经元细胞表面或突触受体抗体介导为主的特异性免疫应答是核心致病环节。此外,非特异免疫也共同参与疾病发生发展过程[7]。全身炎症反应指数(Systemic Inflammation Response Index, SIRI)作为一种新兴的综合性炎症指标,通过整合外周血中中性粒细胞、单核细胞和淋巴细胞的绝对计数(计算公式:中性粒细胞计数 × 单核细胞计数/淋巴细胞计数),与中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值(Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, NLR)、淋巴细胞/单核细胞比值(Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, MLR)和血小板/淋巴细胞比值(Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, PLR)等外周血细胞比值相比,能够更全面地反映机体不同炎症与免疫通路的状态。SIRI最初主要被用来评估肿瘤患者的预后情况[8] [9],后续研究发现其与缺血性脑卒中(Ischemic Stroke, IS)和出血性脑卒中(Hemorrhagic Stroke, HS)等神经系统疾病之间也存在关联[10]-[12]。此外,NLR、MLR和PLR等炎症指标,在类风湿关节炎、系统性红斑狼疮、原发性干燥综合征、多发性硬化等多种自身免疫性疾病中具有临床价值[13]-[17]

然而,目前尚无系统性研究探讨这些炎症标志物对AE发病风险的预测价值。因此,本研究通过比较AE患者与健康个体的SIRI、NLR、MLR和PLR水平的差异,寻找可靠且经济的生物标志物来评估AE的发病风险,为早期诊断与干预提供新的思路。

2. 研究对象和方法

2.1. 研究对象

本研究为单中心回顾性队列研究,纳入2014年12月至2024年12月期间于我院确诊的130例AE患者,同时按年龄和性别1:1匹配纳入130例健康对照者。

2.2. 纳入和排除标准

纳入标准:

1) 患者均符合2022年《中国自身免疫性脑炎诊治专家共识诊断标准》[18]和2016年Graus等[1]Lancet Neurol杂志上提出的AE诊断标准;

2) 血清和/或脑脊液(CSF)检测中AE相关抗体阳性;

3) 基本资料、化验资料完整。

排除标准:

1) 存在其他确定的病因:中枢神经系统感染、代谢性与中毒性脑病、中枢神经系统肿瘤、遗传性疾病、神经系统变性病等;

2) 合并其他自身免疫性疾病或者神经系统疾病;

3) 合并症可能影响血常规,如感染性、肿瘤性和血液系统疾病;

4) 明确诊断前应用过糖皮质激素、丙球或吗替麦考酚酯等免疫治疗相关药物。

2.3. 资料收集

收集患者年龄、性别、入院后24小时内的血常规检查等资料。常规血液检查包括白细胞(WBC)、中性粒细胞、单核细胞、淋巴细胞和血小板。

SIRI = 中性粒细胞 × 单核细胞/淋巴细胞;NLR = 中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞;MLR = 单核细胞/淋巴细胞;PLR = 血小板/淋巴细胞。

2.4. 统计学方法

应用SPSS 29.0进行数据分析。连续变量符合正态分布者以均数 ± 标准差表示,组间比较采用独立样本t检验;非正态分布者以中位数(四分位数)表示,组间比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验;分类变量以频数(百分比)描述,组间比较采用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验。采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线评价NLR、MLR、PLR和SIRI预测AE严重程度的功效,并计算曲线下面积(AUC)。采用Logistic回归分析AE发病的独立危险因素。显著性水平设为p < 0.05。

3. 结果

3.1. 自身免疫性脑炎(AE)患者与健康对照组的基线特征比较

本研究共纳入130名AE患者和130名健康对照者,两组人群在性别和年龄分布上均匹配(p = 1.00)。在130例AE患者中,LGI1脑炎52例(40.00%),NMDAR脑炎38例(29.23%),GABABR脑炎18例(13.85%),重叠性脑炎8例(6.92%),其他脑炎13例(10.00%)。实验室指标比较显示,AE患者的多项炎症相关指标显著高于健康对照组:白细胞计数(WBC) (7.45 vs. 5.83 × 109/L, p < 0.001)、中性粒细胞计数(4.48 vs. 3.24 × 109/L, p < 0.001)、单核细胞计数(0.49 vs. 0.40 × 109/L, p < 0.001)及血小板计数(256.50 vs. 230.50 × 109/L, p = 0.001);而淋巴细胞计数(1.66 vs. 2.00 × 109/L, p < 0.001)显著低于健康对照组。此外,AE组系统性炎症指标也显著升高,包括NLR (2.91 vs. 1.60, p < 0.001)、MLR (0.29 vs. 0.19, p < 0.001)、PLR (144.02 vs. 113.81, p < 0.001)及全SIRI (1.45 vs. 0.61, p < 0.001) (表1)。

Table 1. Demographic and laboratory data of patients with AE and healthy controls

1. AE患者和健康对照组的人口统计学和实验室数据

变量

AE组(n = 130)

健康对照组(n = 130)

p

男性,例(%)

79 (60.80%)

79 (60.80%)

1.00

年龄(岁,M,IQR)

55.00 (19.75, 65.25)

55.00 (19.75, 65.25)

1.00

白细胞计数(109/L, M, IQR)

7.45 (6.02, 9.93)

5.83 (5.12, 6.71)

<0.001

中性粒细胞计数(109/L, M, IQR)

4.48 (3.5, 7.21)

3.24 (2.74, 3.84)

<0.001

淋巴细胞计数(109/L, M, IQR)

1.66 (1.25, 2.38)

2.00 (1.68, 2.44)

<0.001

单核细胞计数(109/L, M, IQR)

0.49 (0.40, 0.65)

0.40 (0.33, 0.47)

<0.001

血小板计数(109/L, M, IQR)

256.50 (210.00, 300.50)

230.50 (200.00, 268.25)

0.001

NLR (M, IQR)

2.91 (1.82, 4.13)

1.60 (1.22, 1.96)

<0.001

MLR (M, IQR)

0.29 (0.20, 0.45)

0.19 (0.16, 0.24)

<0.001

PLR (M, IQR)

144.02 (120.62, 204.89)

113.81 (91.05, 131.23)

<0.001

SIRI (M, IQR)

1.45 (0.76, 2.50)

0.61 (0.48, 0.81)

<0.001

3.2. SIRI升高是AE发病的独立危险因素

多因素logistic回归分析结果显示,在调整年龄、性别及其他炎症指标(NLR、MLR)后,SIRI是自身免疫性脑炎(AE)发病的独立危险因素(OR = 8.20, 95% CI: 2.08~32.42, p = 0.003)。PLR虽呈正相关趋势,但未达到统计学意义(OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00~1.02, p = 0.0 9)。其余变量包括NLR、MLR、年龄和性别均未见显著相关(均p > 0.05) (表2)。

Table 2. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of risk factors for AE

2. AE发病风险的多因素logistic分析

变量

β

OR

95% CI

p

NLR

0.10

1.11

0.62~1.99

0.73

MLR

−0.59

0.56

0.002~132.39

0.83

PLR

0.01

1.01

1.00~1.02

0.09

SIRI

2.10

8.20

2.08~32.42

0.003

年龄

−0.27

0.99

0.98~1.00

0.12

性别

−0.01

0.76

0.40~1.46

0.41

3.3. SIRI、NLR、MLR和PLR对AE发病风险的预测价值

ROC曲线分析结果显示,全身免疫炎症指数(SIRI)对AE的预测效能最高,AUC为0.797 (95% CI: 0.740~0.854)。在最佳截断值为1.073时,其特异度为93.85%,敏感度为63.08%。NLR也表现出较好的预测效能,AUC为0.786 (95% CI: 0.726~0.845),最佳截断值为2.420时对应的敏感度和特异度分别为69.92%和90.77%。MLR与PLR的AUC分别为0.748和0.722,预测能力低于SIRI和NLR。综上,SIRI在四项指标中特异度最高,同时保持较好敏感度(表3图1)。

Table 3. Predictive value of SIRI, NLR, MLR, and PLR for the risk of AE

3. SIRI、NLR、MLR和PLR对AE发病风险的预测价值

变量

AUC

95% CI

最佳截断值

灵敏度(%)

特异度(%)

NLR

0.786

0.726~0.845

2.420

69.92

90.77

MLR

0.748

0.686~0.809

0.286

55.38

88.46

PLR

0.722

0.659~0.785

139.173

56.15

82.31

SIRI

0.797

0.740~0.854

1.073

63.08

93.85

Figure 1. Receiver operating characteristic curves of SIRI, NLR, MLR, and PLR for predicting the risk of AE

1. SIRI、NLR、MLR和PLR预测AE发病风险的ROC曲线

4. 讨论

本研究通过病例对照试验,研究AE患者与健康人群外周血炎症指标的差异性,以筛选与AE发病相关的高风险因素,进而发现有预测价值的指标。研究结果显示,与健康对照组相比,AE患者的NLR、MLR、PLR及SIRI均显著升高(p < 0.001),提示这些指标可能可用于评估AE的发生风险。进一步多因素回归分析证实SIRI是AE发病的独立危险因素(OR = 8.20)。进行ROC曲线分析后,发现SIRI的AUC为0.797 (95% CI = 0.740~0.854),优于NLR、MLR及PLR。这些发现提示,外周血炎症标志物,尤其是SIRI,可能在AE辅助诊断中具有潜在的应用价值。

AE是一组由针对神经元抗原的异常免疫反应引起的中枢神经系统炎症,其核心病理损伤体现为自身抗体和效应T细胞介导的特异性免疫反应,但非特异性免疫系统作为机体的第一道防线,在AE的发病过程中也具有重要作用并且是桥接特异性免疫的关键桥梁[7]。在此过程中,中性粒细胞作为非特异性免疫的早期效应细胞,通过释放基质金属蛋白酶(MMPs)、活性氧(ROS)及促炎因子(如IL-1β)直接破坏血脑屏障(BBB)的完整性;同时,其分泌的趋化因子可诱导单核细胞向炎症部位募集,从而放大初始免疫反应[19] [20] [21]。随后,浸润至中枢神经系统的单核细胞进一步分化为巨噬细胞,与活化的小胶质细胞共同大量释放TNF-α、IL-6等促炎因子,并作为抗原提呈细胞激活初始T细胞,将非特异性免疫警报转化为精准的特异性自身免疫应答[22]-[24]。活化的CD4+ T细胞(特别是Th17亚型)进一步辅助B细胞分化为浆细胞并产生致病性自身抗体,直接导致突触功能障碍与癫痫发作;而B细胞自身也可通过分泌GM-CSF等因子,反向增强髓系细胞的炎症活性,形成正反馈循环[25] [26]。与中性粒细胞和单核细胞不同,淋巴细胞在AE后的炎症反应中通过诱导抗炎细胞因子IL-10的产生,同时抑制促炎因子IL-6、TNF-α的表达,维持免疫稳态,避免神经元过度损伤[27]。NLR、MLR、PLR和SIRI作为整合两种或三种细胞动态关系的复合指标,理论上能更优越地反映机体非特异性免疫的整体水平与平衡状态,这也是我们选择复合指标来研究其与AE发病风险相关性的原因。

在AE的既往的研究中,炎症复合指标与疾病的关联已获得初步证据支持。一项针对抗神经元细胞表面或突触蛋白抗体阳性AE患者的回顾性研究显示,与健康对照组相比,患者的NLR显著升高[28],进一步分析发现,该指标还与AE患者的疾病严重程度、短期预后不良密切相关[28] [29]。这些发现初步印证了中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞系统失衡在AE发病中的重要作用。后续研究进一步证实,NLR不仅是预测患者需重症监护的敏感指标,亦与临床严重程度评分呈独立正相关[30]。更有研究明确指出,NLR与MLR升高均为AE疾病严重程度的独立危险因素[31] [32],表明单核/巨噬细胞通路在AE炎症级联反应中的重要地位。然而,尽管NLR、MLR和PLR等炎症指标在评估AE严重程度和预后方面展现出一定价值,但这些指标仅能反映部分免疫通路的变化。相比之下,SIRI同时整合中性粒细胞、单核细胞和淋巴细胞这三类关键免疫细胞的信息,能够更加全面地评估免疫炎症反应。本研究显示SIRI是AE发病的独立危险因素(OR = 8.20),其ROC曲线下面积为0.797,提示SIRI可作为AE的辅助诊断指标。

本研究结果证实了我们的初始设想。数据分析显示,AE患者的NLR、PLR、MLR及SIRI均显著升高,其中SIRI经多因素回归分析被证实为AE发病的独立危险因素。在诊断效能比较中,SIRI的曲线下面积优于其他指标,显示出更好的区分能力。这表明SIRI通过同步整合中性粒细胞主导的急性炎症、单核细胞参与的抗原提呈过程以及淋巴细胞介导的免疫调节功能,更完整地反映AE的免疫失衡状态。SIRI的这种综合评估能力已在多个疾病领域得到验证。在肿瘤学研究方面,多项研究表明SIRI对胰腺癌[8]、直肠癌[33]、食管癌[34]、胃癌[35]等多种恶性肿瘤的预后具有预测能力,一项纳入10,754例癌症患者的Meta分析显示,SIRI升高与总生存期缩短显著相关(HR = 2.04) [36]。在心血管疾病领域,2023年一项针对42,875名患者的大型队列研究发现,SIRI升高与心血管死亡风险增加相关(HR = 1.39) [37],另有研究证实SIRI对急性心肌梗死患者30天和90天死亡率具有预测价值(AUC = 0.620~0.624) [38]。在神经系统疾病研究方面,2021年研究发现SIRI是缺血性卒中患者90天全因死亡率的独立预测因子(AUC = 0.622) [11],2022年研究进一步证实其对缺血性卒中患者功能结局具有中等预测能力(AUC = 0.714) [12]。并且,Biyik等人的研究显示,SIRI能够预测急性胰腺炎患者的严重程度和急性肾损伤风险(AUC = 0.782) [39]。这些来自不同疾病领域的研究结果共同支持了SIRI作为全身炎症评估指标的科学价值,而本研究则扩展了SIRI在神经系统领域的作用,也为将该指标应用于自身免疫性脑炎研究提供了理论基础。

本研究结果显示SIRI在AE的辅助识别与发病风险评估中具有良好的应用潜力,其预测效能优于传统的NLR、MLR及PLR指标,提示SIRI可能更全面地反映AE发病过程中的系统性炎症激活状态。然而,本研究存在以下主要局限:研究设计为回顾性,无法确定SIRI升高与AE发病之间的因果关系;仅纳入单时间点的炎症指标检测,未能反映疾病进程中炎症状态的动态演变;仅设置健康人群作为对照组,未纳入临床表现相似的其他神经系统疾病,如感染性脑炎或非自身免疫性癫痫,因此无法完全区分SIRI升高是AE特异性免疫反应的表现,抑或是神经系统疾病急性期共有的非特异性炎症应激反应。基于以上局限,未来研究应开展前瞻性、多中心、大样本队列研究,设立更具鉴别意义的疾病对照组,动态监测SIRI等炎症指标,并系统分析其与AE临床分型、治疗反应及神经功能长期预后的关联,从而更全面、精确地评估SIRI在AE诊疗实践中的临床应用价值。

5. 结论

AE外周SIRI水平升高与AE发生风险增加有关,且SIRI可以作为AE早期识别和风险评估的可靠、简便且经济的生物标志物。

声 明

本研究获得青岛大学附属医院伦理委员会批准,患者均签署知情同意书。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Graus, F., Titulaer, M.J., Balu, R., Benseler, S., Bien, C.G., Cellucci, T., et al. (2016) A Clinical Approach to Diagnosis of Autoimmune Encephalitis. The Lancet Neurology, 15, 391-404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] Ramanathan, S., Mohammad, S.S., Brilot, F. and Dale, R.C. (2014) Autoimmune Encephalitis: Recent Updates and Emerging Challenges. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 21, 722-730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3] Esposito, S., Principi, N., Calabresi, P. and Rigante, D. (2019) An Evolving Redefinition of Autoimmune Encephalitis. Autoimmunity Reviews, 18, 155-163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Nissen, M.S., Ryding, M., Meyer, M. and Blaabjerg, M. (2020) Autoimmune Encephalitis: Current Knowledge on Subtypes, Disease Mechanisms and Treatment. CNS & Neurological Disorders-Drug Targets, 19, 584-598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Dalmau, J., Geis, C. and Graus, F. (2017) Autoantibodies to Synaptic Receptors and Neuronal Cell Surface Proteins in Autoimmune Diseases of the Central Nervous System. Physiological Reviews, 97, 839-887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Dalmau, J. and Rosenfeld, M.R. (2014) Autoimmune Encephalitis Update. Neuro-Oncology, 16, 771-778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Wesselingh, R., Butzkueven, H., Buzzard, K., Tarlinton, D., O’Brien, T.J. and Monif, M. (2019) Innate Immunity in the Central Nervous System: A Missing Piece of the Autoimmune Encephalitis Puzzle? Frontiers in Immunology, 10, Article ID: 2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Qi, Q., Zhuang, L., Shen, Y., Geng, Y., Yu, S., Chen, H., et al. (2016) A Novel Systemic Inflammation Response Index (SIRI) for Predicting the Survival of Patients with Pancreatic Cancer after Chemotherapy. Cancer, 122, 2158-2167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] Wei, L., Xie, H. and Yan, P. (2020) Prognostic Value of the Systemic Inflammation Response Index in Human Malignancy. Medicine, 99, e23486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Li, J., Yuan, Y., Liao, X., Yu, Z., Li, H. and Zheng, J. (2021) Prognostic Significance of Admission Systemic Inflammation Response Index in Patients with Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Frontiers in Neurology, 12, Article ID: 718032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Zhang, Y., Xing, Z., Zhou, K. and Jiang, S. (2021) The Predictive Role of Systemic Inflammation Response Index (SIRI) in the Prognosis of Stroke Patients. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 16, 1997-2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Zhou, Y., Zhang, Y., Cui, M., Zhang, Y. and Shang, X. (2022) Prognostic Value of the Systemic Inflammation Response Index in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke. Brain and Behavior, 12, e2619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Bisgaard, A., Pihl-Jensen, G. and Frederiksen, J. (2017) The Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as Disease Activity Marker in Multiple Sclerosis and Optic Neuritis. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 18, 213-217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Wu, Y., Chen, Y., Yang, X., Chen, L. and Yang, Y. (2016) Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) Were Associated with Disease Activity in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. International Immunopharmacology, 36, 94-99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Hu, Z., Sun, Y., Guo, J., Huang, Y., Qin, B., Gao, Q., et al. (2014) Red Blood Cell Distribution Width and Neutrophil/Lymphocyte Ratio Are Positively Correlated with Disease Activity in Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome. Clinical Biochemistry, 47, 287-290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Gasparyan, A.Y., Ayvazyan, L., Mukanova, U., Yessirkepov, M. and Kitas, G.D. (2019) The Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as an Inflammatory Marker in Rheumatic Diseases. Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 39, 345-357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17] Huang, W., Lin, H., Yang, Y., Hsu, C., Chen, N., Tsai, W., et al. (2022) Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Are Associated with a 2-Year Relapse in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 58, Article 103514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] 中华医学会神经病学分会神经感染性疾病与脑脊液细胞学学组. 中国自身免疫性脑炎诊治专家共识(2022年版) [J]. 中华神经科杂志, 2022, 55(9): 931-949.
[19] Mantovani, A., Cassatella, M.A., Costantini, C. and Jaillon, S. (2011) Neutrophils in the Activation and Regulation of Innate and Adaptive Immunity. Nature Reviews Immunology, 11, 519-531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Pierson, E.R., Wagner, C.A. and Goverman, J.M. (2018) The Contribution of Neutrophils to CNS Autoimmunity. Clinical Immunology, 189, 23-28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Jaillon, S., Galdiero, M.R., Del Prete, D., Cassatella, M.A., Garlanda, C. and Mantovani, A. (2013) Neutrophils in Innate and Adaptive Immunity. Seminars in Immunopathology, 35, 377-394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Navegantes, K.C., de Souza Gomes, R., Pereira, P.A.T., Czaikoski, P.G., Azevedo, C.H.M. and Monteiro, M.C. (2017) Immune Modulation of Some Autoimmune Diseases: The Critical Role of Macrophages and Neutrophils in the Innate and Adaptive Immunity. Journal of Translational Medicine, 15, Article No. 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Olson, J.K. and Miller, S.D. (2004) Microglia Initiate Central Nervous System Innate and Adaptive Immune Responses through Multiple TLRs. The Journal of Immunology, 173, 3916-3924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Weber, M.D., Godbout, J.P. and Sheridan, J.F. (2016) Repeated Social Defeat, Neuroinflammation, and Behavior: Monocytes Carry the Signal. Neuropsychopharmacology, 42, 46-61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[25] Pilli, D., Zou, A., Tea, F., Dale, R.C. and Brilot, F. (2017) Expanding Role of T Cells in Human Autoimmune Diseases of the Central Nervous System. Frontiers in Immunology, 8, Article ID: 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26] Spath, S., Komuczki, J., Hermann, M., Pelczar, P., Mair, F., Schreiner, B., et al. (2017) Dysregulation of the Cytokine GM-CSF Induces Spontaneous Phagocyte Invasion and Immunopathology in the Central Nervous System. Immunity, 46, 245-260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[27] McGeachy, M.J. and Anderton, S.M. (2005) Cytokines in the Induction and Resolution of Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis. Cytokine, 32, 81-84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[28] Zeng, Z., Wang, C., Wang, B., Wang, N., Yang, Y., Guo, S., et al. (2019) Prediction of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in the Diagnosis and Progression of Autoimmune Encephalitis. Neuroscience Letters, 694, 129-135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[29] Qiu, X., Zhang, H., Li, D., Wang, J., Jiang, Z., Zhou, Y., et al. (2019) Analysis of Clinical Characteristics and Poor Prognostic Predictors in Patients with an Initial Diagnosis of Autoimmune Encephalitis. Frontiers in Immunology, 10, Article ID: 1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[30] Zhao, X., Wu, F., Zhao, S., Chen, W., Si, W., Li, Y., et al. (2025) The Clinical Value of the Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index, Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio for Predicting the Severity of Patients with Autoimmune Encephalitis. Frontiers in Neurology, 16, Article ID: 1498007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31] Liu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, H., Lian, Y. and Cheng, X. (2022) The Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratios Are Independently Associated with the Severity of Autoimmune Encephalitis. Frontiers in Immunology, 13, Article ID: 911779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[32] Huang, X., Zhang, S., Yan, L., Tang, Y. and Wu, J. (2021) Influential Factors and Predictors of Anti-N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor Encephalitis Associated with Severity at Admission. Neurological Sciences, 42, 3835-3841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[33] Cai, H., Chen, Y., Zhang, Q., Liu, Y. and Jia, H. (2023) High Preoperative CEA and Systemic Inflammation Response Index (C-SIRI) Predict Unfavorable Survival of Resectable Colorectal Cancer. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 21, Article No. 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34] Wu, Z., Zhang, Z. and Gu, C. (2025) Prognostic and Clinicopathological Impact of Systemic Inflammation Response Index (SIRI) on Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Systematic Reviews, 14, Article No. 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[35] Wu, Q. and Zhao, H. (2024) Prognostic and Clinicopathological Role of Pretreatment Systemic Inflammation Response Index (SIRI) in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 22, Article No. 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[36] Zhou, Q., Su, S., You, W., Wang, T., Ren, T. and Zhu, L. (2021) Systemic Inflammation Response Index as a Prognostic Marker in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 38 Cohorts. Dose-Response, 19, 1-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[37] Xia, Y., Xia, C., Wu, L., Li, Z., Li, H. and Zhang, J. (2023) Systemic Immune Inflammation Index (SII), System Inflammation Response Index (SIRI) and Risk of All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Mortality: A 20-Year Follow-Up Cohort Study of 42,875 US Adults. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12, Article 1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[38] Wang, Y. and Chen, H. (2023) A Nonlinear Relationship between Systemic Inflammation Response Index and Short-Term Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Retrospective Study from Mimic-IV. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 10, Article ID: 1208171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39] Biyik, M., Biyik, Z., Asil, M. and Keskin, M. (2022) Systemic Inflammation Response Index and Systemic Immune Inflammation Index Are Associated with Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Pancreatitis? Journal of Investigative Surgery, 35, 1613-1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]