MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116752681 · doi:10.1097/shk.0000000000002747

Measurement of central nervous system related biomarkers in plasma of burn patients

2025· article· en· W7116752681 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Hoisington, Christopher E. Stamper, Molly J. Sullan, Lisa A. Brenner, Ellen L. Burnham, Kevin M. Najarro, Juan-Pablo Idrovo, Arek J. Wiktor, Thomas O. Vogler, Alexandra E. Halevi, Rachel H. McMahan, Elizabeth J. Kovacs

Bibliographic record

VenueShock · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research
FundersNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsCentral nervous systemPlasma levelsFoundation (evidence)BiomarkerBurn injury

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Burn injury produces a complex biological response across multiple organ and biological systems. Nonetheless current understanding regarding the neurologic response to burn injury is limited. Research suggests that disruption of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) may play a role in central nervous system (CNS) damage following burn trauma. As such, the purpose of this study was to investigate systemic circulating biomarkers, frequently associated with neuronal injury, to gain an understanding of their relationship to burn injury severity. METHODS: Blood from fifty-six patients admitted to the burn intensive care units was taken within 24 hours and analyzed for four CNS-related biomarkers in plasma (i.e., ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 [UCH-L1], tau protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], and neurofilament light [NfL]). Clinical information regarding demographics, burn severity, and health outcomes were also obtained. RESULTS: We observed increased burn severity, as measured by total burn surface area (TBSA), was significantly associated with increased UCH-L1, NfL, and tau. GFAP was not associated with burn severity. In a predictive model of days spent in the hospital after injury, accuracy of the four CNS-related biomarkers was only improved by 1% when TBSA was included (i.e., 38.3% accuracy with only biomarkers vs. 39.4% accuracy with biomarkers and TBSA). CONCLUSION: Overall, findings from this novel study highlight an association between burn injury severity and CNS-related biomarkers, thereby providing a foundation for future studies to explore both potential mechanisms associated with burn-related neurologic damage and associated functional impairments.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShockSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207