Evidence mapPaperPMID 39404266Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2024

Harnessing the host response for precision infectious disease diagnosis.

E Wilbur Woodhouse, Micah T McClain, Christopher W Woods

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

E Wilbur WoodhouseDepartment of Medicine, Center for Infectious Disease Diagnostics and Innovation, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8285-3485
Micah T McClainDepartment of Medicine, Center for Infectious Disease Diagnostics and Innovation, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Christopher W WoodsDepartment of Medicine, Center for Infectious Disease Diagnostics and Innovation, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

SUMMARYDetection of the presence of infection and its etiology must be accurate and timely to facilitate appropriate antimicrobial use. Diagnostic strategies that rely solely on pathogen detection often are insufficient due to poor test characteristics, inability to differentiate colonization from infection, or protracted delay to result. Understanding the human response across different pathogens on a clinical and molecular level can provide more accurate, timely, and useful answers, especially in critical illness and diagnostic uncertainty. Improvements in understanding the human immune response including genomics, protein analysis, gene expression, and cellular morphology have led to rapid innovation of new host response-based diagnostic tests. This review describes the limitations of pathogen-focused technology and the benefits of examining the breadth of immune response to diagnose infection. It then explores biomarkers that have been studied for this purpose and scrutinizes the performance of host-based multianalyte testing. Currently cleared diagnostics and those in late-stage development are described in depth, with a focus on the purpose of testing and its utility for clinicians. Finally, it concludes by examining opportunities for further host response-derived diagnostic innovation.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesHost-Pathogen InteractionsPrecision MedicineBiomarkersHumansBiomarkersaccess to careantibiotic resistancediagnosticshost responseimmune responseimmunodiagnosticsinfectious diseaseprecision health

Identifiers

PMID39404266
PMCPMC11629621

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.