MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3178882846

The Potential of MicroRNAs as Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarkers for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3178882846 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ghea Mangkuliguna, Rexel Kuatama, Nikolaus Tobian, Yulian Prastisia, Laurentius Aswin Pramono, Yuda Turana

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurocognitiveBiomarkerTraumatic brain injuryMeta-analysisOncologyInternal medicineNeuroimagingPathologicalSalivaSystematic reviewBioinformaticsPathologyMEDLINECognitionPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: At least 80% of traumatic brain injuries (TBI) are classified as mild. Repetitive mTBI might lead to long-term cognitive and behavioural alterations, or even increasing risks of neurocognitive disorders. Current diagnostic techniques have little benefits on patients with no obvious brain lesions. Altered expression of miRNAs in humans’ biofluids are related to the pathological processes of TBI and can be molecular signature. Objective: Investigate the potential of miRNAs as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for mTBI. Material and Methods: This study was reported following the PRISMA criteria. Literature search was carried out in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest for relevant articles published prior to January 2021. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis were conducted to determine the diagnostic and prognostic value of miRNAs. Quality of included studies was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Ten clinical studies reported various miRNAs from serum/plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and saliva as potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. miRNAs secured from the saliva had the highest diagnostic accuracy (Pooled AUC=0.843; 95% CI [0.802,0.883]; I2=0%; P 0.850) who were more vulnerable to head trauma without apparent lesions on neuroimaging. A common miRNA reported across studies, miR-92a, had very good diagnostic accuracy even when used as a single biomarker (AUC>0.890). Qualitative studies showed that the concentration of miR-425, miR-103a-3p, miR-219a-5p, miR-302d-3p, miR-422a, miR-518f-3p, miR-520d-3p, miR-93, miR-191 and miR-499 were correlated with patients’ clinical outcome. All of included studies showed good quality in terms of selection, comparability and outcome domains. Conclusion: The present study suggested the use of salivary miRNAs as an early diagnostic tool for mTBI. Even though its prognostic value was still undermined, miR-92a was a promising candidate for future diagnostic biomarkers in mTBI.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.030
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→