ArticleFrontiers in molecular biosciences2024
Disease-related data patterns in cerebrospinal fluid diagnostics: medical quality versus analytical quantity.
Article in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The duality of the BBB: breaking the myth of the blood-brain barrier breakdown.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diagnostics is characterized by the biologically relevant combination of analytes in order to obtain disease-related data patterns that enable medically relevant interpretations. The necessary change in knowledge bases such as barrier function as a diffusion/CSF flow model and immunological networks of B-cell clones and pleiotropic cytokines is considered. The biophysical and biological principles for data combination are demonstrated using examples from neuroimmunological and dementia diagnostics. In contrast to current developments in clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, CSF diagnostics is moving away from mega-automated systems with a constantly growing number of individual analyses toward a CSF report that integrates all patient data. Medical training in data sample interpretation in the inter-laboratory test systems ("EQA schemes") has become increasingly important. However, the results for CSF diagnostics (EQAS from INSTAND) indicate a crucially misguided trend. The separate analysis of CSF and serum in different, non-matched assays and extreme batch variations systematically lead to misinterpretations, which are the responsibility of the test providers. The questionable role of expensive accreditation procedures and the associated false quality expectations are discussed. New concepts that reintegrate the medical expertise of the clinical chemist must be emphasized along with the positive side effect of reducing costs in the healthcare system.
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.