Cited by 32Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics

Blood biomarkers for assessment of mild traumatic brain injury and chronic traumatic encephalopathy

Open access
Hiskens, Matthew I., Schneiders, Anthony G., Angoa-Pérez, Mariana, Vella, Rebecca K., Fenning, Andrew S.·2020·Biomarkers

Abstract

Mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBI) are prevalent and can result in significant debilitation. Current diagnostic methods have implicit limitations, with clinical assessment tools reliant on subjective self-reported symptoms or non-specific clinical observations, and commonly available imaging techniques lacking sufficient sensitivity to detect mTBI. A blood biomarker would provide a readily accessible detector of mTBI to meet the current measurement gap. Suitable options would provide objective and quantifiable information in diagnosing mTBI, in monitoring recovery, and in establishing a prognosis of resultant neurodegenerative disease, such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). A biomarker would also assist in progressing research, providing suitable endpoints for testing therapeutic modalities and for further exploring mTBI pathophysiology. This review highlights the most promising blood-based protein candidates that are expressed in the central nervous system (CNS) and released into systemic circulation following mTBI. To date, neurofilament light (NF-L) may be the most suitable candidate for assessing neuronal damage, and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) for assessing astrocyte activation, although further work is required. Ultimately, the heterogeneity of cells in the brain and each marker's limitations may require a combination of biomarkers, and recent developments in microRNA (miRNA) markers of mTBI show promise and warrant further exploration.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1354750x.2020.1735521

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hiskens, M. I., Schneiders, A. G., Angoa-Pérez, M., Vella, R. K., & Fenning, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Central Queensland University (AU)
  • Research and Development Service, John D. Dingell VA Medical Center, Detroit, MI, USA;
Corresponding author
Hiskens, Matthew I.
Venue
Biomarkers
Published
2020-03-12
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
213-227
ISSN
  • 1354-750X (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5804
OpenAlex
W3007040163
Cited by
32
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Biomarkers (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Automotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Keywords
mild traumatic brain injury, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, blood biomarkers, neurofilament light chain, glial fibrillary acidic protein, microRNA biomarkers, astrocyte activation, neuronal injury, neurodegeneration, combined biomarker detection
MeSH terms
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, Brain Concussion, Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein, Humans, Interleukins, Sensitivity and Specificity, Biomarkers, Neurofilament Proteins, Ubiquitin Thiolesterase, S100 Calcium Binding Protein beta Subunit

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