ArticleJournal of intensive care2018
Evaluating the discriminating capacity of cell death (apoptotic) biomarkers in sepsis.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of cell-free DNA levels in the diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis and bacteremia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Cell-free DNA as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for adult sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Predicting mortality in adult patients with sepsis in the emergency department by using combinations of biomarkers and clinical scoring systems: a systematic review.BMC emergency medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Impaired peripheral mononuclear cell metabolism in patients at risk of developing sepsis: A cohort study.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2026Article
- Cell-free DNA in sepsis: from molecular insights to clinical management.Military Medical Research · 2025Review
- Circulating histones as clinical biomarkers in critically ill conditions.FEBS letters · 2025Review
- Point of care sepsis diagnosis: Exploring microfluidic techniques for sample preparation, biomarker isolation, and detection.Biomicrofluidics · 2025Review
- Development of a Multiplexed qPCR Kit for the Detection of Bloodstream Infection.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Circulating Nucleosomes as a Novel Biomarker for Sepsis: A Scoping Review.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Cell-Free Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA as Potential Biomarkers for Assessing Sepsis Severity.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- The impact of preanalytical variables on the analysis of cell-free DNA from blood and urine samples.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
- Cell-free DNA as a potential biomarker for acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2023Review
- Comparison of Serum Nucleosomes and Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinase1 (TIMP1) in Predicting Mortality in Adult Critically Ill Patients in Sepsis: Prospective Observational Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2022Article
- Observational
- Biomarkers Facilitate the Assessment of Prognosis in Critically Ill Patients with Primary Brain Injury: A Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSepsis biomarker panels that provide diagnostic and prognostic discrimination in sepsis patients would be transformative to patient care. We assessed the mortality prediction and diagnostic discriminatory accuracy of two biomarkers reflective of cell death (apoptosis), circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and nucleosomes.
methodsThe cfDNA and nucleosome levels were assayed in plasma samples acquired in patients admitted from four emergency departments with suspected sepsis. Subjects with non-infectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) served as controls. Samples were acquired at enrollment (T0) and 24 h later (T24). We assessed diagnostic (differentiating SIRS from sepsis) and prognostic (28-day mortality) predictive power. Models incorporating procalcitonin (diagnostic prediction) and APACHE II scores (mortality prediction) were generated.
resultsTwo hundred three subjects were included (107 provided procalcitonin measurements). Four subjects exhibited uncomplicated sepsis, 127 severe sepsis, 35 septic shock, and 24 had non-infectious SIRS. There were 190-survivors and 13 non-survivors. Mortality prediction models using cfDNA, nucleosomes, or APACHEII yielded AUC values of 0.61, 0.75, and 0.81, respectively. A model combining nucleosomes with the APACHE II score improved the AUC to 0.84. Diagnostic models distinguishing sepsis from SIRS using procalcitonin, cfDNA(T0), or nucleosomes(T0) yielded AUC values of 0.64, 0.65, and 0.63, respectively. The three parameter model yielded an AUC of 0.74.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first head-to-head comparison of cfDNA and nucleosomes in diagnosing sepsis and predicting sepsis-related mortality. Both cfDNA and nucleosome concentrations demonstrated a modest ability to distinguish sepsis survivors and non-survivors and provided additive diagnostic predictive accuracy in differentiating sepsis from non-infectious SIRS when integrated into a diagnostic prediction model including PCT and APACHE II. A sepsis biomarker strategy incorporating measures of the apoptotic pathway may serve as an important component of a sepsis diagnostic and mortality prediction tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.