Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27181909›Full record

ReviewNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews2016

Blood biomarkers for brain injury: What are we measuring?

Keisuke Kawata, Charles Y Liu, Steven F Merkel, Servio H Ramirez, Ryan T Tierney, Dianne Langford

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 125 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
125citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

125 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Research progress on biomarkers of traumatic brain injury.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

65 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Keisuke KawataDepartment of Kinesiology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Neuroscience, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: keisuke.kawata@temple.edu.
Charles Y LiuDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1520 San Pablo St. #3800, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA. Electronic address: chasliu@cheme.caltech.edu.
Steven F MerkelDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: tue39636@temple.edu.
Servio H RamirezDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: servio@temple.edu.
Ryan T TierneyDepartment of Kinesiology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: rtierney@temple.edu.
Dianne LangfordDepartment of Neuroscience, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: tdl@temple.edu.

Funding

Pilot Projects Core (PPC)P30DA013429 · NIDA · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI Munir Gunes Kutlu · 2000 to 2026
$34.6M
TRAINING PROGRAM: DRUGS OF ABUSE RELATED NEUROPEPTIDEST32DA007237 · NIDA · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI ELLEN M UNTERWALD · 1988 to 2026
$10.6M
Novel serological biomarkers for BBB dysfunction during HIV-1 infectionR01NS086570 · NINDS · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI RAMIREZ, SERVIO HEYBERT · 2013 to 2017
$1.9M
NIDA NIH HHS P30 DA013429NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA007237NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS086570
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate diagnosis for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) remains challenging, as prognosis and return-to-play/work decisions are based largely on patient reports. Numerous investigations have identified and characterized cellular factors in the blood as potential biomarkers for TBI, in the hope that these factors may be used to gauge the severity of brain injury. None of these potential biomarkers have advanced to use in the clinical setting. Some of the most extensively studied blood biomarkers for TBI include S100β, neuron-specific enolase, glial fibrillary acidic protein, and Tau. Understanding the biological function of each of these factors may be imperative to achieve progress in the field. We address the basic question: what are we measuring? This review will discuss blood biomarkers in terms of cellular origin, normal and pathological function, and possible reasons for increased blood levels. Considerations in the selection, evaluation, and validation of potential biomarkers will also be addressed, along with mechanisms that allow brain-derived proteins to enter the bloodstream after TBI. Lastly, we will highlight perspectives and implications for repetitive neurotrauma in the field of blood biomarkers for brain injury.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesBiomarkersGlial Fibrillary Acidic ProteinHumansS100 Calcium Binding Protein beta SubunitBiomarkersGlial Fibrillary Acidic ProteinS100 Calcium Binding Protein beta SubunitBlood biomarkerBlood-brain barrierConcussionMild TBI

Identifiers

PMID27181909
PMCPMC5003664

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.