Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40585008›Full record

ReviewTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2025

Exploring the Landscape of Biomarkers in Spinal Cord Injury.

Paulina S Scheuren, Bethany R Kondiles, Angela R Filous, Ona E Bloom, Diana S-L Chow, Edelle C Field-Fote, Patrick Freund, James D Guest, Brian K Kwon, Nikos Kyritsis and 7 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Paulina S ScheurenInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Bethany R KondilesInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Angela R FilousDepartment of Neurology, Spinal Cord Injury Division, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio.
Ona E BloomDepartments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Molecular Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York.
Diana S-L ChowDepartment of Pharmacological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Edelle C Field-FoteCrawford Research Institute, Shepherd Center, Atlanta, Georgia.
Patrick FreundSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
James D GuestThe Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, Miller School of Medicine, The University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Brian K KwonInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Nikos KyritsisWeill Institute for Neurosciences, Brain and Spinal Injury Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Chris LeptakGreenleaf Health, Washington, DC.
Monica A PerezShirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, Illinois.
Matthew SzapacsAbbVie, Pennsylvania.
Christopher R WestInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Keith Tansey *United States Department of Veterans Affairs, G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery VA Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi.
Jane T C Hsieh *Wings for Life, Salzburg, Austria.
Linda Jones *Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite considerable progress in spinal cord injury (SCI) research, there remains a pressing need for interventions that effectively restore neurological function after injury beyond that which occurs spontaneously. A major steppingstone towards the development of effective therapies for SCI is the ability to accurately predict recovery and identify individuals who are most likely to respond to intervention. Currently, the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) remains the primary tool for assessing neurological impairment after injury. However, based on the inherent limitations of the ISNCSCI exam, accurate and sensitive biomarkers are required. Understanding the role of biomarkers in SCI is crucial for improving diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment strategies. In 2024, the Spinal Cord Outcome Partnership Endeavour (SCOPE) sponsored a precourse at the American Spinal Injuries Association (ASIA) meeting. The international panel discussed the scope, utility, and application of biomarkers in SCI clinical trials and clinical practice. This article summarizes key insights from this discussion, highlighting the value of various types of biomarkers, ranging from molecular and cellular markers to those reflecting neural circuits, systems, and movement. We also summarize the context of using different types of biomarkers and their application in research versus clinical practice. While there are currently no FDAqualified SCI biomarkers, the development of reliable biomarkers holds the potential to accelerate the pace of discovery and enable more precise approaches to treatment.

Indexed as

BiomarkersSpinal Cord InjuriesHumansBiomarkersbiomarkersparticipant stratificationprecision medicinepredictionprognosisspinal cord injury clinical trialstreatment response

Identifiers

PMID40585008
PMCPMC12199613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.