ArticleClinical chemistry and laboratory medicine2025
Increased specificity of the "GFAP/UCH-L1" mTBI rule-out test by age dependent cut-offs.
Article in Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- GFAP and UCH-L1 for Ruling out Intracranial Lesions After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Validation of Blood-Based Biomarkers After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury with GCS 15 in a Singapore Emergency Department: An Observational Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Age- and Sex-Related Differences in GFAP and UCH-L1 Levels in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Budget Impact Analysis of the Use of Specific Biomarkers GFAP and UCH-L1 in the Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Spain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Age-Adjusted Cut-Off Values for Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein and Ubiquitin Carboxy-Terminal Hydrolase L1 Improve the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Abbott Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Assay.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) remains challenging to diagnose effectively in the emergency department. Abbott has developed the "GFAP/UCH-L1" mTBI test, to guide the clinical decision to perform a computed tomography (CT) head scan by ruling out the presence of mTBI. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the "GFAP/UCH-L1" mTBI test in a Greek cohort and established age-dependent cut-offs.
methodsA total of 362 subjects with suspected mTBI and admitted to the Emergency department of the KAT General Hospital of Athens, Greece were recruited for the study. All subjects underwent a CT head scan to establish the diagnosis of mTBI. GFAP and UCH-L1 were measured using Alinity I (Abbott). 163 healthy subjects served as controls.
resultsUsing the manufacturer's cut-offs (35 ng/L for GFAP and 400 ng/L for UCH-L1), the "GFAP/UCH-L1" mTBI test had a sensitivity of 99.1 % and a specificity of 40.6 %. However, the specificity dropped to 14.9 % in patients older than 65 years old. By defining a new cut-off of 115 ng/L for GFAP and 335 ng/L specifically for patients older than 65 years, specificity was increased up to 30.6 % without changing test sensitivity and the number of CT head scans avoided was doubled in this subgroup.
conclusionsThe "GFAP/UCH-L1" mTBI test is an efficient "rule-out test" to exclude patients suffering from mTBI. By adjusting the cut-offs in patients older than 65 years old, we could significantly increase the number of CT head scans avoided without affecting the sensitivity. These new cut-offs should be externally validated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39592246What 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.