ArticleCurrent research in neurobiology2022
Glial fibrillary acidic protein level on admission can predict severe traumatic brain injury in patients with severe multiple trauma: A single-center retrospective observational study.
Article in Current research in neurobiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serum Biomarkers in Paediatric Neurosurgery: Traumatic Brain Injury and Beyond.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Neuroinflammatory mechanisms may help identify candidate biomarkers in chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).Free neuropathology · 2025Review
- Integrated Assessment of GFAP and UCH-L1 for their utility in severity assessment and outcome prediction in Traumatic Brain Injury.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- Serial assessment of the novel biomarker MFGE8 in comparison with GFAP for predicting severity and outcome after traumatic brain injury.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to clarify whether the glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and soluble protein-100β (S100β) can predict severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) in patients with severe multiple trauma. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective observational study of 179 patients with severe multiple trauma. The GFAP and S100β were measured upon patient arrival at the hospital. We divided the patients into the severe TBI group (with a Traumatic Coma Data Bank classification of ≥III), the non-severe TBI group (non-TBI group [absence of abnormality on the computed tomography scan and extracranial injury], and the mild to moderate TBI group [TCDB classification I and II]). We compared biomarker levels between the two groups and then evaluated the accuracy of predicting severe TBI using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: A total of 41 patients had severe TBI, and 138 had non-severe TBI. Mean GFAP levels were significantly higher in the severe TBI group (median, 6000 pg/mL; interquartile range [IQR], 651-15,548 pg/mL) than in the non-severe TBI group (median, 149 pg/mL; IQR, 0-695 pg/mL) (p < 0.0001). In contrast, there was no significant difference in S100β levels between the severe TBI group (median, 64 pg/mL; IQR, 0-536 pg/mL) and non-severe TBI group (median, 117 pg/mL; IQR, 0-403 pg/mL) (p = 0.637). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.810 (p < 0.0001) for GFAP and 0.476 (p = 0.908) for S100β. For the GFAP, the optimal cutoff value for detecting severe TBI was 947 pg/mL (sensitivity, 75.6%; specificity, 78.3%). Conclusions: In patients with severe multiple trauma, the GFAP level at hospital arrival could predict severe TBI, whereas the S100β level was not a useful predictor.
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.