ReviewBiomarker research2026
Circulating biomarkers of carotid plaque vulnerability: current evidence, emerging markers, and barriers to clinical implementation.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carotid plaque instability is a major cause of ischemic stroke, whereas conventional imaging based mainly on luminal stenosis cannot fully capture the dynamic molecular processes that precede plaque rupture. Circulating biomarkers provide a noninvasive approach to identify vulnerable carotid plaques by reflecting inflammation, lipid dysregulation, endothelial activation, thrombogenicity, oxidative stress, extracellular matrix remodeling, and other biological changes within the plaque microenvironment. This review summarizes current evidence on both traditional and emerging biomarkers of carotid plaque vulnerability, with emphasis on their ability to discriminate unstable from stable plaques and to predict future cerebrovascular events. Among traditional biomarkers, inflammatory markers, modified lipid-related markers, endothelial and neovascularization-related markers, coagulation-fibrinolysis indicators, and oxidative stress/extracellular matrix remodeling markers show the most consistent associations with plaque vulnerability. Emerging evidence further supports the potential relevance of epigenetic markers, macrophage-related immunophenotypic markers, iron metabolism-related markers, TGF-β2, non-traditional lipid parameters, endoplasmic reticulum stress-related proteins, and several exploratory biomarkers. In addition, multi-biomarker and multimodal models integrating circulating markers with imaging features appear to outperform individual biomarkers alone in identifying high-risk plaques. However, despite these advances, most candidate biomarkers remain exploratory and have not yet entered routine clinical practice because of limited specificity and sensitivity, insufficient reproducibility, lack of assay standardization and universally accepted cutoff values, and the predominance of small, single-center, or early-stage studies without adequate external validation. Future progress will depend on large prospective multicenter studies, standardized detection methods, and integrated multimodal risk models that combine biomarkers with imaging and clinical variables. These efforts may ultimately improve early risk stratification and individualized management of patients with vulnerable carotid atherosclerotic plaques.
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.