A Universal Immune Index (II): A Composite Quantitative Assessment Method and Calculation Tool for Immune Function Based on Multidimensional Routine Laboratory Parameters
zhang, Y.; LI, K.
Show abstract
Background: Quantitative assessment of immune function is essential for clinical and health decisions in oncology, post-surgical management, and autoimmune diseases. Existing methods are either too simplistic (single indicators) or too complex and costly for routine use. A standardized, easy-to-operate tool based on routine laboratory parameters is needed for both clinical and health checkup settings. Methods: We propose the Immune Index (II), integrating 9 routine laboratory parameters across three dimensions: humoral immunity (IgG, complement C3, C4), cellular immunity (CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, CD4+/CD8+ ratio), and inflammatory response (CRP, IL-6, systemic immune-inflammation index [SII]). Indicators were normalized using min-max normalization to a 0-100 scale and aggregated with fixed weights (humoral 30%, cellular 40%, inflammatory 30%). The II score ranges from 0 to 100, with a healthy reference range of 50-80. Results: A four-tier grading system was established: >=80 (immune overactivation), 50-80 (immune homeostasis), 35-50 (mild immune suppression), <35 (severe immune deficiency). Validation using 209 cases from published literature showed an AUC of 0.924 (95% CI: 0.87- 0.97) for distinguishing normal from abnormal immune status, with an optimal cutoff of 47.8 (sensitivity 84.8%, specificity 85.9%). II scores were 56.7+/-8.6 (healthy), 43.5+/-8.0 (immunodeficient), and 33.6+/-6.5 (autoimmune), with P<0.001 between all groups. The calculation requires only two steps and can be implemented in Excel or LIS. II can serve as an immune dimension supplement for personal health checkups. Conclusion: The Immune Index provides a simple, standardized, and low-cost tool for quantitative immune function assessment. The fixed-weight design ensures cross-institutional comparability, making it suitable for outpatient clinics, health checkup centers, and primary care settings. Keywords: Immune index; immune function; quantitative assessment; routine laboratory parameters; composite score; min-max normalization
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Immune-Based Prediction of COVID-19 Severity and Chronicity Decoded Using Machine Learning 95%
- Machine Learning Identifies Complicated Sepsis Trajectory and Subsequent Mortality Based on 20 Genes in Peripheral Blood Immune Cells at 24 Hours post ICU admission 93%
- Expression levels of HLA-DRB and HLA-DQ are associated with MHC Class II haplotypes in healthy individuals and rheumatoid arthritis patients 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Fecal immunoglobulin A (IgA) and its subclasses in systemic lupus erythematosus patients are nuclear antigen reactive and this feature correlates with gut permeability marker levels 93%
- Lupus Gut Microbiota Transplants Cause Autoimmunity and Inflammation 92%
- Towards standardization of immune functional assays 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Declining Course of Humoral Immune Response in Initially Responding Kidney Transplant Recipients after Repeated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination 92%
- Levels of produced antibodies after vaccination with mRNA vaccine; effect of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 92%
- Integrative systems biology approach identified crucial genes and transcription factors associated with gallbladder cancer pathogenesis 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 as a prognostic biomarker for disease progression in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 93%
- Antibodies anti-SARS-CoV2 time-course in patients and vaccinated subjects: an evaluation of the harmonization of two different methods 92%
- Factors influencing plasma galectin-3 concentrations in catheter-bearing hospitalized patients 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.