Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25603864›Full record

ReviewExpert review of proteomics2015

Proteomics: in pursuit of effective traumatic brain injury therapeutics.

Pavel N Lizhnyak, Andrew K Ottens

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Expert review of proteomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. New astroglial injury-defined biomarkers for neurotrauma assessment.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2017
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Pavel N LizhnyakDepartment of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.
Andrew K Ottens

Funding

Dynamics of the Traumatic Brain Injury Degradome.K25NS055012 · NINDS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI OTTENS, ANDREW K · 2006 to 2009
$670k
NINDS NIH HHS K25 NS055012NINDS NIH HHS NS055012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective traumatic brain injury (TBI) therapeutics remains stubbornly elusive. Efforts in the field have been challenged by the heterogeneity of clinical TBI, with greater complexity among underlying molecular phenotypes than initially conceived. Future research must confront the multitude of factors comprising this heterogeneity, representing a big data challenge befitting the coming informatics age. Proteomics is poised to serve a central role in prescriptive therapeutic development because it offers an efficient endpoint within which to assess post-TBI biochemistry. We examine rationale for multifactor TBI proteomic studies and the particular importance of temporal profiling in defining biochemical sequences and guiding therapeutic development. Finally, we offer perspective on repurposing biofluid proteomics to develop theragnostic assays with which to prescribe, monitor and assess pharmaceutics for improved translation and outcome for patients with TBI.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomarkersBrain InjuriesDrug DiscoveryHumansNeuroprotective AgentsProteomeProteomicsBiomarkersNeuroprotective AgentsProteomebrain injuryinformaticsinhibitory synapsespost-translational modificationproteomicsTBItemporaltheragnosticstherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID25603864
PMCPMC4664524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.