Observational studyBMC research notes2026
Diagnostic and prognostic utility of neutrophil CD64 and monocyte HLA-DR in adult sepsis patients.
Observational study in BMC research notes, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of nCD64, mHLA-DR and sepsis Index (SI), ratio of nCD64 and mHLA-DR, in patients with sepsis.
methodsProspective observational study was undertaken among 50 cases diagnosed with sepsis, 25 non-septic patients, and 25 healthy individuals as controls. Participants underwent flowcytometric estimation of nCD64 and mHLA-DR on the day of admission.
resultsThe sepsis cohort had significantly higher nCD64 and lower mHLA-DR expression than both control groups (p-value: < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of nCD64 ABC (Antibodies Bound per Cell) for diagnosis of sepsis with a cut-off of 1152.16 was 94% and 74%, respectively. Similarly, for the Sepsis Index (cutoff-11.36), the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of sepsis were 88% and 86%, respectively. The combination of sepsis index or CD64 (either positive) increased the sensitivity to 96%. Using the combination of all three markers (nCD64 ABC, mHLA-DR ABC, and SI), the sensitivity for diagnosis of sepsis approached 100%. Among flow cytometric variables, the sepsis index had a statistically significant association with hospital mortality on univariate analysis. However, overall, only the baseline SOFA score was independently associated with hospital mortality.
conclusionnCD64 and sepsis index are good diagnostic markers in patients with sepsis.
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.