Cited by 98Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Blood-based biomarkers for traumatic brain injury: Evaluation of research approaches, available methods and potential utility from the clinician and clinical laboratory perspectives

Strathmann, Frederick G., Schulte, Stefanie, Goerl, Kyle, Petron, David J.·2014·Clinical Biochemistry

Abstract

Blood-based biomarkers for traumatic brain injury (TBI) have been investigated and proposed for decades, yet the current clinical assessment of TBI is largely based on clinical symptoms that can vary widely amongst patients, and have significant overlap with unrelated disease states. A careful review of current treatment guidelines for TBI further highlights the potential utility of a blood-based TBI biomarker panel in augmenting clinical decision making. Numerous expert reviews on blood-based TBI biomarkers have been published but a close look at the methods used and the astonishing paucity of validation and quality control data has not been undertaken from the vantage point of the clinical laboratory. Further, the field of blood-based TBI biomarker research has failed to adequately examine sex and gender differences between men and women with respect to the clinical care settings, as well as differences in physiological outcomes of TBI biomarker studies. Discussions of tried-and-true laboratory techniques in addition to a few new ones already operating in the clinical laboratory are summarized with a consideration of their utility in TBI biomarker assessment. In the context of TBI biomarkers, the central concerns discussed in this review are the readiness of the clinical laboratory, the willingness of the research environment and the inherent ability of each to radically affect patient outcomes in TBI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.01.028

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Neuroimaging and blood biomarkers that are TBI-specific yet robust across injury type and translatable from pre-clinical to clinical studies have not been applied to the study of sex differences.

    “Neuroimaging and blood biomarkers that are TBI-specific yet robust across injury type and translatable from pre-clinical to clinical studies have not been applied to the study of sex differences.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 158 · Cited by 98

Authors
Strathmann, F. G., Schulte, S., Goerl, K., & Petron, D. J.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Strathmann, Frederick G.
Venue
Clinical Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
47
Issue
10-11
Pages
876-888
ISSN
0009-9120 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043301410
Cited by
98
References
158
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 6
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, blood-based biomarkers, biomarker validation, quality control, sex and gender differences, biomarker panel, clinical decision-making
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Female, Humans, Male, Sex Characteristics, Biomarkers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review