Trial reportCritical care explorations2025
Progesterone for Traumatic Brain Injury, Experimental Clinical Treatment III Trial Revisited: Objective Classification of Traumatic Brain Injury With Brain Imaging Segmentation and Biomarker Levels.
Trial report in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis post hoc study of the Progesterone for Traumatic Brain Injury, Experimental Clinical Treatment (ProTECT) III trial investigates whether improving traumatic brain injury (TBI) classification, using serum biomarkers (glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP] and ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal esterase L1 [UCH-L1]) and algorithmically assessed total lesion volume, could identify a subset of responders to progesterone treatment, beyond broad measures like the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E), which may fail to capture subtle changes in TBI recovery.
designBrain lesion volumes on CT scans were quantified using Brain Lesion Analysis and Segmentation Tool for CT. Patients were classified into true-positive and true-negative groups based on an optimization scheme to determine a threshold that maximizes agreement between radiological assessment and objectively measured lesion volume. True-positives were further categorized into low (> 0.2-10 mL), medium (> 10-50 mL), and high (> 50 mL) lesion volumes for analysis with protein biomarkers and injury severity. Correlation analyses linked Rotterdam scores (RSs) with biomarker levels and lesion volumes, whereas Welch's t-test evaluated biomarker differences between groups and progesterone's effects.
settingForty-nine level 1 trauma centers in the United States. PATIENT: Patients with moderate-to-severe TBI.
interventionsProgesterone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsGFAP and UCH-L1 levels were significantly higher in true-positive cases with low to medium lesion volume. Only UCH-L1 differed between progesterone and placebo groups at 48 hours. Both biomarkers and lesion volume in the true-positive group correlated with the RS. No sex-specific or treatment differences were found.
conclusionsThis study reaffirms elevated levels of GFAP and UCH-L1 as biomarkers for detecting TBI in patients with brain lesions and for predicting clinical outcomes. Despite improved classification using CT-imaging segmentation and serum biomarkers, we did not identify a subset of progesterone responders within 24 or 48 hours of progesterone treatment. More rigorous and quantifiable measures for classifying the nature of injury may be needed to enable development of therapeutics as neither serum markers nor algorithmic CT analysis performed better than the older metrics of Rotterdam or GCS metrics.
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.