The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Combining biomarkers of BNIP3 L, S100B, NSE, and accessible measures to predict sepsis-associated encephalopathy: a prospective observational study
Abstract
Background Accurate identification of delirium in sepsis patients is crucial for guiding clinical diagnosis and treatment. However, there are no accurate biomarkers and indicators at present. We aimed to identify which combinations of cognitive impairment-related biomarkers and other easily accessible assessments best predict delirium in sepsis patients. Methods One hundred and one sepsis patients were enrolled in a prospective study cohort. S100B, NSE, and BNIP3 L biomarkers were detected in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid and patients' optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD). The optimal biomarkers identified by Logistic regression are combined with other factors such as ONSD to filter out the perfect model to predict delirium in sepsis patients through Logistic regression, Naïve Bayes, decision tree, and neural network models. Main results Among all biomarkers, compared with BNIP3 L (AUC = .706, 95% CI = .597-.815) and NSE (AUC = .711, 95% CI = .609-.813) in cerebrospinal fluid, plasma S100B (AUC = .729, 95% CI = .626-.832) had the best discrimination performance for delirium in sepsis patients. Logistic regression analysis showed that the combination of cerebrospinal fluid BNIP3 L with plasma S100B, ONSD, neutrophils, and age provided the best discrimination to cognitive impairment in sepsis patients (accuracy = .901, specificity = .923, sensitivity = .911), which was better than Naïve Bayes, decision tree, and neural network models. Neutrophils, ONSD, and cerebrospinal fluid B…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Only 5 studies reported calibration metrics.
“In addition, only 5 studies reported calibration metrics, which are crucial for assessing model reliability [38,63,113,120,121].”
From Multimodal Artificial Intelligence for Precision Critical Care: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [120]
Citations
Cites
Imaging in sepsis-associated encephalopathy—insights and opportunities
Stubbs, D. J., Yamamoto, A. K., & Menon, D. K. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2013.177 · Cited by 118
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- 10.1164/rccm.201504-0781OC · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/jama.1996.03530300054040 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.2010.1553 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11064-014-1308-0 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41598-020-64200-3 · DOI
- 10.1093/bja/aem201 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11064-008-9907-2 · DOI
- 10.1177/0963689719840353 · DOI
- 10.1080/15548627.2020.1802089 · DOI
- 10.1080/15548627.2020.1848130 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2021.12.002 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13054-020-02959-7 · DOI
- 10.3233/JAD-160619 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00134-017-4807-z · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3389/fmicb.2021.737066 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70120-6 · DOI
- 10.3390/e23121703 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-1-4419-7046-6_19 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.034 · DOI
- 10.3389/fncel.2022.788150 · DOI
- 10.29399/npa.23212 · DOI
- 10.1080/15548627.2017.1357792 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Multimodal Artificial Intelligence for Precision Critical Care: A Scoping Review
Yang, M., Shi, N., Chen, H., Po, E. Y. P., Ng, P. Y., Lai, P. C. K., Wu, Y.-C., & Fong, D. Y. T. (2026) · Health Data Science · doi:10.34133/hds.0356 · Cited by 3
“In addition, only 5 studies reported calibration metrics, which are crucial for assessing model reliability [ 38 , 63 , 113 , 120 , 121 ].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, N., Xie, K., Yang, F., Wang, Y., Yang, X., & Zhao, L.
- Affiliations
- Tianjin Medical University General Hospital (CN)
- Chifeng Municipal Hospital (CN)
- Medical Laboratory Technology, Ulanqab Medical College, Wulanchabu City, China
- Corresponding author
- Zhao, Lina
- Venue
- Current Medical Research and Opinion
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-03-05
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 575-582
- ISSN
- 0300-7995 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-4877
- OpenAlex
- W4392047588
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 4.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Medical Research and Opinion (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Science Foundation of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (2022MS08002)
- Technology Plan Project of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Health Commission (202202326)
- Tianjin Municipal Health Commission (TJWJ2023QN007)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (82302413)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
- Keywords
- sepsis-associated encephalopathy, delirium, sepsis, BNIP3L, S100B, neuron-specific enolase, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, plasma biomarkers, optic nerve sheath diameter, neutrophils, cognitive impairment, combined biomarker detection, prediction model
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem, Delirium, Humans, Membrane Proteins, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Proto-Oncogene Proteins, Biomarkers, Sepsis, S100 Calcium Binding Protein beta Subunit, Sepsis-Associated Encephalopathy
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