ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
The diagnostic and prognostic value of sTM, t-PAIC, and NLRP3 in ICU patients with sepsis.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic values of soluble thrombomodulin (sTM), tissue-type plasminogen activator-inhibitor 1 complex (t-PAIC), and NLRP3 in sepsis patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 206 patients with sepsis or septic shock. Baseline characteristics and inflammatory markers were compared among sepsis, septic shock, and ICU control groups, as well as between survivors and non-survivors. Serum levels of sTM, t-PAIC, and NLRP3 were measured. ROC curves were used to evaluate diagnostic performance, while univariate and multivariate analyses identified significant prognostic predictors.
resultsSignificant differences were observed in BMI, heart disease, lung disease, APACHE II scores, mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, CRRT, and 28-day mortality across the three groups (all p < 0.05). Compared to ICU controls, the sepsis group showed significant differences in WBC and sTM levels, while the septic shock group exhibited variations in ten biomarkers, including WBC, neutrophil count, AST, BUN, Cr, CRP, IL-6, Lac, D-dimer, and sTM. Distinct biomarker profiles differentiated sepsis from septic shock (NLR, AST, CRP, IL-6, Lac). PCT, t-PAIC, and NLRP3 levels differed significantly across all group comparisons (all p < 0.05). Age, APACHE II score, neutrophil count, PLT, NLR, AST, BUN, Na+, PCT, P/F ratio, Lac, sTM, and t-PAIC were significantly different between survivors and non-survivors (all p < 0.05). Among individual indicators, NLRP3 showed the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.992). However, the diagnostic performance of the sTM and NLRP3 combination (AUC = 0.802), the t-PAIC and NLRP3 combination (AUC = 0.805), and the three-biomarker panel (AUC = 0.822) for septic shock was lower than that of NLRP3 alone. Prognostic stratification using APACHE II, IL-6, PCT, Lac, sTM, t-PAIC, and NLRP3 revealed significant differences in survival outcomes. APACHE II score, PCT, sTM, and t-PAIC were identified as independent prognostic factors.
conclusionssTM, t-PAIC, and NLRP3 demonstrate measurable utility in differentiating sepsis from general ICU controls, with sTM and t-PAIC showing a modest association with survival outcomes. NLRP3 exhibits a relatively stronger signal in identifying septic shock, while sTM and t-PAIC may serve as independent prognostic indicators.
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.