MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discovery of novel plasma biomarker ratios to discriminate traumatic brain injury

2019· preprint· en· W2976342849 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Chen, Antoninus Soosaipillai, Douglas D. Fraser, Eleftherios P. Diamandis

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicS100 Proteins and Annexins
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity Health NetworkWestern UniversityMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarkerTraumatic brain injuryMedicinePhysiologyEnolaseNeurodegenerationPathologyInternal medicineBiologyImmunohistochemistryDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability. Despite increased awareness, reliable biomarkers are urgently needed to aid in all forms of traumatic brain injury diagnosis and prognosis. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> Here, we aim to assess the diagnostic utility of known and novel TBI biomarkers in a pilot patient cohort of severe TBI (sTBI) patients and healthy controls. We analyzed concentrations of S100 calcium binding protein B (S100B), neuron specific enolase (NSE), human kallikrein 6 (hK6) and prostaglandin D2 synthase (PGDS) using ELISA immunoassays. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> Plasma levels of hK6 and PGDS were significantly lower in sTBI compared with controls, while S100B and NSE were significantly higher. Furthermore, we show that ratios of NSE and S100B with hK6 and PGDS may be able to determine the presence of sTBI better than single markers alone. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> The findings presented here represent a starting point for future validation, where biomarker ratios can be tested in independent TBI cohorts. </ns4:p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicS100 Proteins and AnnexinsFrench-language works237,207