ArticleScientific reports2025
Neurotrophic factor biomarkers for ischemic stroke diagnosis and mechanistic insights.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Next-Generation Stroke Biomarkers: Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and Translation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Cerebral Infarction: Epidemiology, Classification, Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Integrative multi-omics analysis reveals the drug-protein-ceRNA regulatory network in acute ischemic stroke.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- MARCKS N-terminal sequence-derived inhibitor peptides impair monocytic ROS production and migration via MARCKS-independent effects.Molecular biology reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ischemic stroke (IS), a multifactorial disease resulting from the complex interplay of various environmental and genetic risk factors. Neurotrophic factors (NTFs) have a potential role in IS, but the exact mechanisms are unknown. The aim of this study was to identify biomarkers associated with the occurrence and development of NTFs and to analyze their potential mechanisms of action. In this study, we selected the intersection of neurotrophic factor genes, differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and key genes in the IS module based on IS-related datasets (GSE16561 and GSE58294). Machine learning screened out 5 biomarkers for IS diagnosis (MMP9, MARCKS, IGF2R, HECW2 and CYBRD1). GSEA results showed that different signaling pathways were activated in IS samples with high expression of different diagnostic genes. Furthermore, an immunological analysis was carried out, which demonstrated significant differences in the levels of activated B cells, neutrophils, and activated CD8 T cells between IS patients and normal samples. RT-qPCR results showed that there were significant differences in the expression of CYBRD1, MARCKS and MMP9 between IS and control patients. In conclusion, we identified 5 diagnostic markers that may be involved in the progression of IS, including MMP9, MARCKS, IGF2R, HECW2 and CYBRD1. Finally, differential expression of MMP9, MARCKS, and CYBRD1 was detected in peripheral blood samples from 15 IS and 5 normal cases. Our analysis could serve as a foundation for enhancing comprehension of the underlying molecular mechanisms governing the pathogenesis and progression of IS. The identified biomarkers might serve as targets for the development of novel diagnostic assays, enabling earlier detection of IS and potentially leading to more timely and effective treatment interventions.
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.