ReviewBiomedicines2026
Risk Stratification in Pulmonary Embolism: The Expanding Role of Biomarkers.
Review in Biomedicines, 2026. 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.
- Prognostic Score Model for 30-Day Mortality in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism Presenting to the Emergency Department.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a frequent and potentially fatal condition, with early mortality largely driven by (RV) failure and hemodynamic collapse. Rapid and accurate prognostic assessment is therefore central to management. Current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) strategies rely first on hemodynamic status to identify high-risk patients requiring urgent reperfusion consideration, and then-when patients are normotensive-on a stepwise approach combining clinical risk scores, RV imaging, and circulating biomarkers. Clinical tools such as HESTIA and the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI)/simplified PESI (sPESI) enable early identification of low-risk patients suitable for outpatient pathways and stratify 30-day mortality risk, but do not integrate biological data. Consequently, biomarkers have an expanding role in refining prognosis, particularly within the heterogeneous intermediate-risk group. This review provides a practical overview of established and emerging biomarkers for PE risk stratification. Conventional cardiac biomarkers-troponins and natriuretic peptides (BNP/NT-proBNP)-reflect RV myocardial injury and strain and, when combined with imaging evidence of RV dysfunction, allow discrimination between intermediate-low- and intermediate-high-risk PE, guiding monitoring intensity and escalation strategies. D-dimer, while essential in diagnostic algorithms because of its high negative predictive value, has only an adjunctive and indirect prognostic role. Beyond these markers, growing evidence supports additional biomarkers capturing complementary pathways: neurohormonal stress (copeptin), early myocardial injury (H-FABP), inflammation and hypoxia (GDF-15), tissue hypoperfusion (lactate), and molecular regulation (circulating microRNAs). Readily available inflammatory indices derived from blood counts (NLR, PLR, LMR), red cell distribution width, and hs-CRP may further contribute within multimarker models, although specificity and validation remain limitations. Future directions include multimodal and omics-driven biomarker profiling integrated with advanced imaging to enable more precise, dynamic, and personalized PE care, from acute risk prediction to long-term follow-up and prevention of chronic thromboembolic complications.
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.