ReviewBiomarker research2026
The role of biomarkers across the care continuum in acute heart failure.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute heart failure (AHF) remains a global health challenge, characterized by high morbidity, mortality, and frequent rehospitalizations. The heterogeneity of clinical presentations in AHF and its complex underlying pathophysiology complicates diagnosis, risk stratification, and therapeutic decision-making. Biomarkers have reshaped the clinical landscape in AHF by providing objective, biologically-grounded insights that complement traditional clinical assessment. Natriuretic peptides are established as indispensable for diagnosis and prognosis, while troponins, soluble ST2, galectin-3, and even newer candidates such as adrenomedullin and CA-125 may capture complementary domains including myocardial injury, fibrosis, congestion, and systemic stress. Applied dynamically across the care continuum-from the emergency department to hospitalization, discharge, and follow-up-biomarkers may support earlier diagnosis, more refined risk assessment, monitoring of therapeutic response, and post-discharge surveillance. Evidence increasingly favors multimarker strategies, integrating diverse biological signals; these consistently outperform single-marker approaches. Risk scores that incorporate biomarkers further strengthen clinical decision-making by providing structured risk estimates at critical time points. Future studies must explore best means of combining multiple markers into panels and whether multimarker-guided strategies have benefit in improving outcomes beyond the natriuretic peptides and troponin. Future advances will depend on embedding biomarkers within precision-medicine frameworks. Phenotype-specific algorithms, integration into electronic health records with automated decision support, and the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning offer clear potential. Equally, innovations in point-of-care testing and remote monitoring may extend biomarker utility beyond hospital walls. Collectively, these developments could shift AHF management from reactive stabilization toward proactive, biomarker-guided care aimed at improving outcomes in this high-risk population.
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.