ReviewPediatric research2026
Lactate to creatinine ratio: just another biomarker?
Review in Pediatric research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomarkers that meaningfully influence outcomes in pediatric sepsis remain limited. Lactate is commonly used to assess illness severity but is constrained by developmental variability and sensitivity to transient physiologic stress. The lactate-to-creatinine ratio (LCR) has been proposed as a composite biomarker that integrates metabolic derangement with early organ dysfunction to improve risk stratification in critically ill children. Although biologically plausible and readily available, pediatric evidence for LCR is largely restricted to measurements obtained early in the intensive care unit course, raising questions about its clinical relevance in a dynamic disease process. In this commentary, we examine the rationale for LCR as a sepsis biomarker, critique the limitations of single time-point assessment, and consider whether LCR offers actionable information beyond existing clinical evaluation and established biomarkers. We argue that the clinical value of LCR will depend on its ability to inform decision-making and improve patient-centered outcomes, rather than prognostic association alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42020799What 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.