ReviewMolecular biology reports2024
Advances in development of biomarkers for brain damage and ischemia.
Review in Molecular biology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of dexmedetomidine on cerebral homeostasis in patients undergoing craniotomy for brain tumour excision: A randomized double-blind trial.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Trial
- Serum Endocan as a Novel Biomarker of Cerebral Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in a Rat Model.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Development of a Clinical Prediction Model for Ultra-Early Mild Acute Ischemic Stroke with Negative CT Results.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Blood flow in the human cerebral cortex: Large-scale pial vascularization and 1D simulation.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Potential Correlation Between Molecular Biomarkers and Oxidative Stress in Traumatic Brain Injury.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Higher plasma neurofilament-light chain concentration in drug-resistant epilepsy.Brain communications · 2025Article
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
Acquired brain injury is an urgent situation that requires rapid diagnosis and treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) are required for accurate diagnosis. However, these methods are costly and require substantial infrastructure and specialized staff. Circulatory biomarkers of acute brain injury may help in the management of patients with acute cerebrovascular events and prevent poor outcome and mortality. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the development of potential biomarkers of brain damage to increase diagnostic possibilities. For this purpose, we searched the PubMed database of studies on the diagnostic potential of brain injury biomarkers. We also accessed information from Clinicaltrials.gov to identify any clinical trials of biomarker measurements for the diagnosis of brain damage. In total, we present 41 proteins, enzymes and hormones that have been considered as biomarkers for brain injury, of which 20 have been studied in clinical trials. Several microRNAs have also emerged as potential clinical biomarkers for early diagnosis. Combining multiple biomarkers in a panel, along with other parameters, is yielding promising outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.