MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411865872 · doi:10.1186/s13613-025-01500-9

Biomarkers for intensive care unit-acquired weakness: a systematic review for prediction, diagnosis and prognosis

2025· review· en· W4411865872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiamei Song, Ting Deng, Qingmei Yu, Xun Luo, Yanmei Miao, Leiyu Xie, Peng Xie, S. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Intensive Care · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGDF15 and Related Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineBiomarkerCochrane LibraryIntensive care unitMEDLINEIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) is a common and debilitating complication in critically ill patients, significantly affecting both short- and long-term outcomes. The existing ICU-AW diagnostic methods are not widely accepted and have a narrow application window. Biomarkers offer potential for diagnosing, predicting, and prognosticating ICU-AW, but a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence is still lacking. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP Database), and China Biomedical Literature Database (SinoMed Database) from inception to January 23, 2025. Study quality was assessed using the revised Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Data extraction included basic characteristics of the included studies, name of biomarkers, objective, specimen types, sampling time, type of biomarker, ICU-AW diagnostic criteria, and outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 5,769 publications screened, 11 studies of moderate to high quality (scores ≥ 6) involving 1,176 critically ill patients were included. Ten biomarkers were identified and categorized into five mechanisms: muscle injury (myoglobin, N-titin, urinary titin), metabolic pathway (glucose transporter protein type-4), neurological injury (neurofilament light/heavy chain), stress response (growth differentiation factor-15), and inflammatory process (monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, NETs marker cfDNA, and miR-181a). Six biomarkers demonstrated strong predictive and diagnostic accuracy with AUC values exceeding 0.80. Notably, growth differentiation factor-15 exhibited excellent clinical utility across diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic applications (AUC ≥ 0.85). The remaining four biomarkers showed moderate performance, with AUC values ranging from 0.60 to 0.80. CONCLUSION: While ten biomarkers exhibit potential for ICU-AW assessment, their clinical utility remains inconsistent. This highlights the need for large-scale, prospective validation studies and the incorporation of advanced technologies to refine existing biomarkers and identify novel candidates for ICU-AW prediction, diagnosis and management. DATE OF REGISTRATION: Registered 1 August 2024. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42024574437.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.010
Bibliometrics0.0140.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Intensive CareSame topicGDF15 and Related BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207