MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137901980 · doi:10.1080/02699052.2021.1900602

Plasma PrPC and ADAM-10 as novel biomarkers for traumatic brain injury and concussion: a pilot study

2021· article· en· W3137901980 on OpenAlexaff
Amit Persad, Nam Pham, Farzad Moien‐Afshari, William B. Gormley, Sandra C. Yan, Rebekah Mannix, Changiz Taghibiglou

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPrion Diseases and Protein Misfolding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsADAM10Traumatic brain injuryConcussionBiomarkerMedicineInternal medicineMetalloproteinaseOncologyPoison controlDisintegrinInjury preventionBiologyMatrix metalloproteinasePsychiatryEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cellular prion protein (PrPC) is a lipid raft protein abundant within CNS. It is regulated by a disintegrin and metalloproteinase domain containing protein 10 (ADAM10). PrPC has previously been implicated as a biomarker for TBI. ADAM10 has not been investigated as a TBI biomarker. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated PrPC and ADAM10 as candidate biomarkers for TBI. METHODS: We performed ELISA for ADAM10 and PrPC on plasma samples of patients with TBI admitted to Brigham and Women's Hospital. Plasma samples from 20 patients admitted for isolated TBI were acquired from a biobank with clinical information. Control plasma (37 samples) was acquired from a commercial source. GraphPad was used to conduct statistical analysis. RESULTS: < .001). ADAM10 exhibited greater expression in patients with worse clinical grade. There was no significant association of either PrPC or ADAM10 with time after injury. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that PrPC and ADAM10 appear to be useful potential tools for screening of TBI. ADAM10 is closely associated with clinical grade.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicPrion Diseases and Protein MisfoldingFrench-language works237,207