Back to all available

Diagnostic value of leucocyte cell population data combined with soluble cytokines in Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia

immunology
pediatrics
respiratory-medicine
statistics
data-science

Abstract

Background. Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MPP) is the leading cause of community-acquired pneumonia in China and poses a significant threat to the health of children. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of leukocyte cell population data (CPD) and soluble cytokines in MPP to provide insights into its clinical diagnosis.

Methods. A total of 70 children with MPP confirmed via MP-DNA testing were enrolled in the MPP group. Simultaneously, 70 healthy children who underwent routine physical examinations were recruited as the control group. Peripheral blood leukocyte cell population parameters and serum soluble cytokine levels were collected from all participants. Through statistical analysis, the best combination of biomarkers for the early diagnosis of MPP was identified.

Results. The median age of patients with MPP was 7 (6–8) years, with a median fever duration of 6 (4.5–8.5) days. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between MPP and healthy control groups in a range of leukocyte CPD parameters. Among the leukocyte parameters, the side-scattered light distribution width index of the neutrophil area in the WDF scattergram (NE-WX) displayed the highest diagnostic performance, with an AUC of 0.846, sensitivity of 75.71%, and specificity of 87.14%. The side-scattered light intensity of the monocyte area in the WDF scattergram (MO-X), immature granulocyte percentage (IG%), and immature granulocyte count (IG) also demonstrated strong diagnostic values, with AUCs of 0.833, 0.818, and 0.807, respectively. Among the lymphocyte-related parameters, the side-scattered light distribution width index of the lymphocyte area in the WDF scattergram (LY-WX) and the fluorescence distribution width index of the lymphocyte area in the WDF scattergram (LY-WY) exhibited AUCs of 0.816 and 0.747, respectively, indicating good diagnostic ability. The MPP group exhibited significantly higher levels of soluble CD40 ligand (sCD40L), soluble interleukin-2 receptor alpha (sCD25), soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (sTREM-1), and soluble interleukin-6 receptor beta subunit (sCD130) than the control group (p < 0.05). Univariate and stepwise multivariable logistic regression analyses identified sCD25, sTREM-1, IG%, and MO-X as four independent risk factors for MPP. This combination of four markers achieved the best diagnostic performance, with an AUC of 0.996, significantly outperforming any single marker. The sensitivity and specificity of this combined model were 98.6%.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].