Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41002922›Full record

ReviewNeurology international2025

Deciphering the Structural Biology of GFAP: Connotations of Its Potency in Presaging the Diagnosis for Traumatic Brain Injury and AD.

Sri Harsha Kanuri, Prapthi Jayesh Sirrkay

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Sri Harsha KanuriMerit Health Wesley Medical Center, 1501 Hardy Street, Hattiesburg, MS 39402, USA.
Prapthi Jayesh SirrkayMedical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Alzheimer's disease, accumulation of Aβ and tau aggregates in the limbic and cortical regions of the brain forms the pathological basis for the onset of memory loss and cognitive abnormalities. The neuronal desecration inflicted by these toxic pile-ups will rouse the onset of innate immune defense mechanisms including astrogliosis within the neuronal milieu. A potential ramification of astrogliosis is the overproduction and spillage of GFAP into the brain circulation. Execution of GFAP vital physiological functions rests upon the preservation of its filamentous structure as well as its cytoskeletal interactions. Any anomaly that hampers the structural integrity of GFAP will engender filament disassembly, cytoplasmic aggregation, and decreased solubility with the resultant deleterious consequences. The potency of GFAP as a reliable biomarker in the blood also rests on its ability to navigate the glymphatic excretory pathways and spill into the systemic circulation. Recent reports have suggested GFAP is a dependable marker for auguring subtle disease changes in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and AD. However, pathological anomalies such abnormal structural integrity, cleavage, impaired drainage pathways, and alternative isoforms will lessen its potency and thwarts its ability from becoming a full-fledged and stable biomarker for neurological diseases. Understanding the GFAP biology, including factors that influence its structural integrity and excretory pathways, will be crucial and this review underscores these sections in a succinct manner. Thorough comprehension of GFAP biology is the principal step in unearthing its potential as a powerful marker for auguring disease initiation, and progression in TBI and AD.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseaseamyloid betaastrogliosisbiomarkersbrain atrophyGFAPneurodegenerationneuronal deathtau

Identifiers

PMID41002922
PMCPMC12472827

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.