Cited by 15Extracellular vesicles in diseaseTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Extracellular Vesicle Levels of Nervous System Injury Biomarkers in Critically Ill Trauma Patients with and without Traumatic Brain Injury

Open access
Guedes, Vivian A., Mithani, Sara, Williams, Cydni, Sass, Dilorom, Smith, Ethan G., Vorn, Rany, Wagner, Chelsea, Lai, Chen +2 more·2022·Neurotrauma Reports

Abstract

Moderate/severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) causes injury patterns with heterogeneous pathology producing varying outcomes for recovery. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are particles containing a myriad of molecules involved in cell signaling. EVs may hold promise as biomarkers in TBI because of their encapsulation, including improved stability/decreased degradation. A subset of subjects with and without TBI from a prospective, observational trial of critically ill trauma patients were analyzed. Total EV levels of glial (glial fibrillary acidic protein; GFAP) and neuronal/axonal (ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 [UCH-L1], neurofilament light chain [NfL], and total-tau) proteins were measured using single-molecule array technology. Protein levels were winsorized to address outliers and log transformed for analysis. Patients with multiple injuries ( n = 41) and isolated body injury ( n = 73) were of similar age and sex. Patients with multiple injuries were, as expected, more severely injured with higher Injury Severity Scores (29 [26–41] vs. 21 [14–26], p < 0.001) and lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (12 [4–13] vs. 13 [13–13], p < 0.001). Total body EVs of GFAP, UCH-L1, and NfL were higher in those with multiple injuries (1768 [932–4780] vs. 239 [63–589], p < 0.001; 75.4 [47.8–158.3] vs. 41.5 [21.5–67.1], p = 0.03; 7.5 [3.3–12.3] vs. 2.9 [2.1–4.8], p < 0.001, respectively). There was a moderate correlation between the Head Abbreviated Injury Score and GFAP (free circulating rho = 0.62, EV rho = 0.64; both p < 0.001). Brain-derived proteins contained in EV holds promise as an informative approach to biomarker measurement after TBI in hospitalized patients. Future evaluation and longitudinal studies are necessary to draw conclusions regarding the clinical utility of these biomarkers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/neur.2022.0058

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Efforts to identify EV-based biomarkers for TBI have largely centered on well-characterized proteins like UCHL1, Tau, and Aβ.

    “Efforts to identify EV-based biomarkers for TBI have largely centered on well-characterized proteins like UCHL1, Tau, and Aβ [184–186].”

    From Extracellular vesicles as nanotheranostic platforms for targeted neurological disorder interventions (2024) · cites this paper as [186]

    The Methods report measuring EV-associated UCH-L1 and tau, and the Discussion describes a prior study of EV amyloid-beta 42 in mild TBI. The paper therefore supports these proteins as examples of EV biomarkers studied in TBI, but it does not establish that efforts in the field have largely centered on them; its own study also measures GFAP and NfL. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guedes, V. A., Mithani, S., Williams, C., Sass, D., Smith, E. G., Vorn, R., Wagner, C., Lai, C., Gill, J., & Hinson, H. E.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Hinson, Holly E.
Venue
Neurotrauma Reports
Published
2022-09-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
545-553
ISSN
2689-288X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4313418258
Cited by
15
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3
FWCI
1.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurotrauma Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL150229)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K23NS110828)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Extracellular vesicles in disease
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, extracellular vesicles, neuroinflammation biomarkers, glial fibrillary acidic protein, UCHL1, neurofilament light chain, tau protein, polytrauma, critically ill trauma patients, injury severity, single molecule array

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