Trial reportThe Journal of clinical investigation2025
A multi-analyte blood test for acute spinal cord injury.
Trial report in The Journal of clinical investigation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plasma Proteomic Biomarkers of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy in the UK Biobank.Neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Combined plasma and imaging biomarkers as predictors of neurological outcome in cervical traumatic spinal cord injury.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Point-of-care electroencephalography for prediction of postoperative delirium in older adults undergoing elective surgery: protocol for a prospective cohort study.Biology methods & protocols · 2026Review
- A nine-gene signature with potential targets for predicting the prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Precision medicine in acute spinal cord injury: moving beyond static hemodynamic targets.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUNDRapid diagnosis to facilitate urgent intervention is critical for treatment of acute spinal cord injury (SCI). We hypothesized that a multi-analyte blood biomarker would support point-of-care SCI diagnosis, correlate with injury severity, and predict long-term neurologic outcomes.METHODSDroplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assays were designed to amplify differentially hypomethylated genomic loci in spinal cord tissue. An optimized ddPCR assay was applied to cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from plasma samples collected from prospectively enrolled acute SCI patients. Targeted proteomic profiling was also performed. Spinal cord-derived cfDNA and plasma proteins were tested for their association with SCI and ability to predict conversion in American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score at 6 months.RESULTSA bespoke ddPCR assay detected spinal cord-derived cfDNA in plasma of 50 patients with acute SCI (AUC: 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.95, P < 0.0001). Levels of cfDNA were highest in patients with the most severe injury, i.e., ASIA A, compared with those with ASIA B (P = 0.04), ASIA C (P = 0.009), and ASIA D injuries (P < 0.001). Dimensionality reduction identified 4 candidate proteins (FABP3, REST, IL-6, NF-H) that were integrated with spinal cord-derived cfDNA to derive the Spinal Cord Injury Index (SCII), which has high sensitivity and specificity for SCI diagnosis (AUC: 0.91, 95% CI 0.82-0.99, P < 0.0001), correlates with injury severity (P < 0.0001), and predicts 6-month neurologic improvement (AUC: 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.93, P = 0.006).CONCLUSIONThe detection of spinal cord-derived cfDNA and plasma protein alterations as part of a multi-analyte blood test can inform SCI diagnosis and prognosis.FUNDINGNorth American Spine Society Young Investigator Award; Morton Cure Paralysis Fund.
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.