ArticleBiomarker research2026
Predictive value of lipopolysaccharide for cerebral-cardiac syndrome, stroke-associated pneumonia, and prognosis in acute ischemic stroke.
Article in Biomarker 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLipopolysaccharide (LPS), a key mediator of systemic inflammation via the brain-gut axis, is elevated in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We aimed to investigate the association of plasma LPS levels with cerebral-cardiac syndrome (CCS), stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP), and poor functional outcome in AIS patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis (IVT).
methodsIn this prospective cohort of 120 AIS patients receiving IVT, plasma LPS levels were assessed at baseline (designated LPS-T1) and 24 h after IVT (designated LPS-T2). Outcomes included CCS, SAP, and poor 3-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 3–6). Variable selection was performed via least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression followed by backward stepwise elimination based on the Akaike Information Criterion. Final multivariable logistic models underwent internal validation via 1000 bootstrap resamples, with performance assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultsAmong 120 AIS patients receiving IVT, 21.67% developed CCS, 40.83% developed SAP, and 28.33% had poor functional outcome. Patients who developed CCS or SAP had significantly higher plasma LPS levels than those without these complications at both baseline and 24 h after IVT (all p < 0.05). Additionally, LPS-T2 levels were higher in those with poor functional outcome compared to those with good outcome (p = 0.018). The final prediction model for CCS incorporated age, C-reactive protein, LPS‑T2, lymphocyte count, and triglyceride level, while the SAP model included age, admission mRS score, platelet-to-neutrophil ratio, LPS‑T2, thrombin time, and protein S activity. The poor‑outcome model comprised admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, protein S, and LPS‑T2. All three models demonstrated excellent discrimination, with AUC values of 0.866 (95% confidence interval: 0.778–0.954) for CCS, 0.877 (0.816–0.939) for SAP, and 0.856 (0.779–0.933) for poor outcome. Bootstrap internal validation (1000 replicates) yielded optimism‑corrected AUCs of 0.844, 0.849, and 0.837, respectively. The models showed good calibration and DCA indicated a positive net clinical benefit.
conclusionsPlasma LPS level at 24 h after IVT serves as a potential biomarker for predicting CCS, SAP, and poor outcome in AIS patients, with the prediction models incorporating LPS‑T2 showing robust predictive performance.
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.