ArticleJournal of medicine and life
Prediction of Neurocognitive Outcome after Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Using Serum Neuron-Specific Enolase and S100 biomarkers.
Article in Journal of medicine and life. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Fluid Biomarkers of Cognitive Impairments Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Development of a practical predictive nomogram for cognitive impairment risk following traumatic brain injury: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Longitudinal changes in cognitive ability following traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain communications · 2026Review
- Research progress of neuron-specific enolase in cognitive disorder: a mini review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Review
- Review: Emerging Eye-Based Diagnostic Technologies for Traumatic Brain Injury.IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seric biomarkers have been tested in a large number of studies on traumatic brain injuries (TBI) patients in order to predict severity, especially related to the short-term outcome. However, TBI patients have a high risk of developing long-term complications such as physical disability, cognitive impairment, psychiatric pathology, epilepsy, and others. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between protein biomarkers S100 and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) and neurocognitive status at 10- and 90-days post-injury. Both biomarkers were tested in the first 4h and after 72h post-injury in 62 patients with moderate-severe TBI. The patients were evaluated by a series of neurocognitive tests: Early Rehabilitation Barthel Index (ERBI), Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE), The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Processing Speed Index (PSI), and Stroop Test, at 10 and 90 days post-injury and supplementary by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 90 days. For evaluating the whole neurocognitive status instead of every scale separately, we used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), while for anxiety and depressive symptoms, we used multiple regression analyses. SEM showed that NSE values at 4 hours were significant predictors of the cognitive status at 10 (p=0.034) and 90 days (p= 0.023). Also, there were found significant correlations between NSE at 4h and the anxiety level. This study demonstrated a significant correlation between NSE at 4h and short and medium-term neuropsychological outcomes, which recommends using this biomarker for selecting patients with a higher risk of cognitive dysfunction.
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.