Home › Research › Biomarkers
An update on diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for traumatic brain injury
Wang KK, Yang Z, Zhu T, Shi Y, Rubenstein R, Tyndall JA, Manley GT.. Expert review of molecular diagnostics, 2018-01-23
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Introduction Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major worldwide neurological disorder of epidemic proportions. To date, there are still no FDA-approved therapies to treat any forms of TBI. Encouragingly, there are emerging data showing that biofluid-based TBI biomarker tests have the potential to diagnose the presence of TBI of different severities including concussion, and to predict outcome. Areas covered: The authors provide an update on the current knowledge of TBI biomarkers, including protein biomarkers for neuronal cell body injury (UCH-L1, NSE), astroglial injury (GFAP, S100B), neuronal cell death (αII-spectrin breakdown products), axonal injury (NF proteins), white matter injury (MBP), post-injury neurodegeneration (total Tau and phospho-Tau), post-injury autoimmune response (brain antigen-targeting autoantibodies), and other emerging non-protein biomarkers. The authors discuss biomarker evidence in TBI diagnosis, outcome prognosis and possible identification of post-TBI neurodegernative diseases (e.g. chronic traumatic encephalopathy and Alzheimer's disease), and as theranostic tools in pre-clinical and clinical settings. Expert commentary: A spectrum of biomarkers is now at or near the stage of formal clinical validation of their diagnostic and prognostic utilities in the management of TBI of varied severities including concussions. TBI biomarkers could serve as a theranostic tool in facilitating drug development and treatment monitoring.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wang, K. K., Yang, Z., Zhu, T., Shi, Y., Rubenstein, R., Tyndall, J. A., et al. (2018). An update on diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for traumatic brain injury. Expert review of molecular diagnostics. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2018.1428089
Vancouver
Wang KK, Yang Z, Zhu T, Shi Y, Rubenstein R, Tyndall JA, et al. An update on diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for traumatic brain injury. Expert review of molecular diagnostics. 2018. doi:10.1080/14737159.2018.1428089. PMID: 29338452.
BibTeX
@article{wang2018-29338452,
author = {Wang, K. K. and Yang, Z. and Zhu, T. and Shi, Y. and Rubenstein, R. and Tyndall, J. A. and Manley, G. T.},
title = {{An update on diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for traumatic brain injury}},
journal = {Expert review of molecular diagnostics},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1080/14737159.2018.1428089},
pmid = {29338452},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2018.1428089}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Encouragingly, there are emerging data showing that biofluid-based TBI biomarker tests have the potential to diagnose the presence of TBI of different severities including concussion, and to predict outcome.
- Areas covered: The authors provide an update on the current knowledge of TBI biomarkers, including protein biomarkers for neuronal cell body injury (UCH-L1, NSE), astroglial injury (GFAP, S100B), neuronal cell death (αII-spectrin breakdown products), axonal injury (NF proteins), white matter injury (MBP), post-injury neurodegeneration (total Tau and phospho-Tau), post-injury autoimmune response (brain antigen-targeting autoantibodies), and other emerging non-protein biomarkers.
- The authors discuss biomarker evidence in TBI diagnosis, outcome prognosis and possible identification of post-TBI neurodegernative diseases (e.g. chronic traumatic encephalopathy and Alzheimer's disease), and as theranostic tools in pre-clinical and clinical settings.
- Expert commentary: A spectrum of biomarkers is now at or near the stage of formal clinical validation of their diagnostic and prognostic utilities in the management of TBI of varied severities including concussions.
- TBI biomarkers could serve as a theranostic tool in facilitating drug development and treatment monitoring.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Expert review of molecular diagnostics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29338452) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “neurofilament”
696 studies in the library carry the topic tag “neurofilament”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 696 tagged studies.