↓ Skip to main content

Blood Biomarkers in Moderate-To-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Potential Utility of a Multi-Marker Approach in Characterizing Outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Blood Biomarkers in Moderate-To-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Potential Utility of a Multi-Marker Approach in Characterizing Outcome
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2015.00110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex P. Di Battista, John E. Buonora, Shawn G. Rhind, Michael G. Hutchison, Andrew J. Baker, Sandro B. Rizoli, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, Gregory P. Mueller

Abstract

Blood biomarkers are valuable tools for elucidating complex cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying traumatic brain injury (TBI). Profiling distinct classes of biomarkers could aid in the identification and characterization of initial injury and secondary pathological processes. This study characterized the prognostic performance of a recently developed multi-marker panel of circulating biomarkers that reflect specific pathogenic mechanisms including neuroinflammation, oxidative damage, and neuroregeneration, in moderate-to-severe TBI patients. Peripheral blood was drawn from 85 isolated TBI patients (n = 60 severe, n = 25 moderate) at hospital admission, 6-, 12-, and 24-h post-injury. Mortality and neurological outcome were assessed using the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale. A multiplex platform was designed on MULTI-SPOT(®) plates to simultaneously analyze human plasma levels of s100 calcium binding protein beta (s100B), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neuron specific enolase (NSE), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1, intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM)-5, and peroxiredoxin (PRDX)-6. Multivariable logistic regression and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were used to evaluate both individual and combined predictive abilities of these markers for 6-month neurological outcome and mortality after TBI. Unfavorable neurological outcome was associated with elevations in s100B, GFAP, and MCP-1. Mortality was related to differences in six of the seven markers analyzed. Combined admission concentrations of s100B, GFAP, and MCP-1 were able to discriminate favorable versus unfavorable outcome (AUC = 0.83), and survival versus death (AUC = 0.87), although not significantly better than s100B alone (AUC = 0.82 and 0.86, respectively). The multi-marker panel of TBI-related biomarkers performed well in discriminating unfavorable and favorable outcomes in the acute period after moderate-to-severe TBI. However, the combination of these biomarkers did not outperform s100B alone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 151 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 15%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Student > Master 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 31 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 14%
Neuroscience 22 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 6%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 37 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2019.
All research outputs
#6,283,695
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,158
of 11,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,443
of 266,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#37
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,756 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.