ArticleScientific reports2025
Clinical score based on CGRP, PD-1, and PD-L1 for PICC-related bloodstream infections in breast cancer.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- CGRP: the immune system's double agent - context-dependent roles in inflammation, resolution and cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related bloodstream infections (BSIs) are serious complications in breast cancer patients. Reliable early risk assessment remains limited. Female breast cancer patients (n = 384) receiving PICCs were retrospectively analyzed. Serum CGRP levels were measured by ELISA, while PD-1 and PD-L1 expression was quantified via qPCR. A 3-point BioScore was calculated by assigning one point per abnormal biomarker (CGRP < 42.817 pg/mL, PD-1 > 2.301, PD-L1 < 1.613). Patients were stratified into low (0), intermediate (1-2), or high (3) risk groups. The cohort was split into training (n = 269) and validation (n = 115) sets. BSIs occurred in 78 patients (20.3%). The BioScore demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC 0.96 in training and 0.93 in validation) and good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = 0.797 and 0.875). BSI rates rose with BioScore category. While the BioScore was derived from biomarker values measured at the time of clinical suspicion for BSI, its strong discriminatory performance suggests potential for earlier application, such as at routine follow-ups, pending prospective validation. The BioScore demonstrated excellent internal discrimination and calibration in a retrospective, single-center cohort. Further external and prospective validation is necessary before clinical use.
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.