A head-to-head comparison of S100B and GFAP/UCH-L1 for detection of traumatic intracranial lesions in a Scandinavian trauma cohort.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Thea Overgaard Wichmann, Ayad Babaee, Kirsten Duch, Mikkel Mylius Rasmussen, Maj Lesbo, Ole Brink, Lars C Borris, Claus V B Hviid
{"title":"A head-to-head comparison of S100B and GFAP/UCH-L1 for detection of traumatic intracranial lesions in a Scandinavian trauma cohort.","authors":"Thea Overgaard Wichmann, Ayad Babaee, Kirsten Duch, Mikkel Mylius Rasmussen, Maj Lesbo, Ole Brink, Lars C Borris, Claus V B Hviid","doi":"10.1186/s13049-025-01364-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Few countries recommend glial fibrillary protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) as a substitute for S100 astroglial calcium-binding protein B (S100B) in early detection of traumatic intracranial lesions in mild TBI (mTBI). This study aims to evaluate the classification agreement between S100B and GFAP/UCH-L1 in a Scandinavian trauma cohort, to evaluate the performance characteristics of S100B and GFAP/UCH-L1 for detection of traumatic intracranial lesions, and lastly to evaluate the laboratory performance of the GFAP/UCH-L1 assay.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospectively collected data from an unselected cohort of 379 adult trauma patients admitted to a level I trauma center at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, were retrospectively analyzed. Analyses were performed in the unselected cohort, in sub-cohort 1 (n = 218) i.e. patients with any evidence of TBI in their chart as well as in sub-cohort 2 (n = 105) i.e. patients with mTBI defined as Glasgow Coma Scale score ≥ 14, an injury severity score ≤ 15, and blood sampling within 6 h or 12 h after trauma. Plasma-samples were used for GFAP/UCH-L1 measurement and serum-samples were used for S100B measurement. Data analysis involved agreement analysis using Cohens kappa and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for each biomarker in each of the three cohorts. Lastly, levels of GFAP/UCH-L1 measured by the Alinity-I platform and the Simoa platform were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Classification agreement between GFAP/UCH-L1 and S100B was high in all three cohorts, but Cohens kappa improved with increasing proximity to clinical biomarker use and reached an almost perfect identity in sub-cohort 2 (0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.92). S100b had a sensitivity and negative predictive value of 100% in sub-cohort 2, while GFAP/UCH-L1 reached 100% across all three cohorts. The specificities for both S100B and GFAP/UCH-L1 were relatively low. Comparing GFAP/UCH-L1 levels between platforms revealed a low concordance with the Alinity-I platform measuring GFAP levels on average 65% lower and UCH-L1 levels 84% higher than the Simoa platform.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, S100B and GFAP/UCH-L1 had an almost perfect agreement for classification of mTBI patients and comparable diagnostic performances for detecting traumatic intracranial lesions. Our results therefore support GFAP/UCH-L1 as a feasible alternative to S100B for detecting traumatic intracranial lesions in mTBI.</p>","PeriodicalId":49292,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine","volume":"33 1","pages":"52"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11938562/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-025-01364-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Few countries recommend glial fibrillary protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) as a substitute for S100 astroglial calcium-binding protein B (S100B) in early detection of traumatic intracranial lesions in mild TBI (mTBI). This study aims to evaluate the classification agreement between S100B and GFAP/UCH-L1 in a Scandinavian trauma cohort, to evaluate the performance characteristics of S100B and GFAP/UCH-L1 for detection of traumatic intracranial lesions, and lastly to evaluate the laboratory performance of the GFAP/UCH-L1 assay.

Methods: Prospectively collected data from an unselected cohort of 379 adult trauma patients admitted to a level I trauma center at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, were retrospectively analyzed. Analyses were performed in the unselected cohort, in sub-cohort 1 (n = 218) i.e. patients with any evidence of TBI in their chart as well as in sub-cohort 2 (n = 105) i.e. patients with mTBI defined as Glasgow Coma Scale score ≥ 14, an injury severity score ≤ 15, and blood sampling within 6 h or 12 h after trauma. Plasma-samples were used for GFAP/UCH-L1 measurement and serum-samples were used for S100B measurement. Data analysis involved agreement analysis using Cohens kappa and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for each biomarker in each of the three cohorts. Lastly, levels of GFAP/UCH-L1 measured by the Alinity-I platform and the Simoa platform were compared.

Results: Classification agreement between GFAP/UCH-L1 and S100B was high in all three cohorts, but Cohens kappa improved with increasing proximity to clinical biomarker use and reached an almost perfect identity in sub-cohort 2 (0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.92). S100b had a sensitivity and negative predictive value of 100% in sub-cohort 2, while GFAP/UCH-L1 reached 100% across all three cohorts. The specificities for both S100B and GFAP/UCH-L1 were relatively low. Comparing GFAP/UCH-L1 levels between platforms revealed a low concordance with the Alinity-I platform measuring GFAP levels on average 65% lower and UCH-L1 levels 84% higher than the Simoa platform.

Conclusions: In this study, S100B and GFAP/UCH-L1 had an almost perfect agreement for classification of mTBI patients and comparable diagnostic performances for detecting traumatic intracranial lesions. Our results therefore support GFAP/UCH-L1 as a feasible alternative to S100B for detecting traumatic intracranial lesions in mTBI.

S100B和GFAP/UCH-L1在斯堪的纳维亚创伤队列中检测外伤性颅内病变的直接比较
背景:很少有国家推荐神经胶质原纤维蛋白(GFAP)和泛素c末端酶- l1 (ch - l1)作为S100星形胶质钙结合蛋白B (S100B)的替代品,用于轻度TBI (mTBI)创伤性颅内病变的早期检测。本研究旨在评估斯堪的纳维亚创伤队列中S100B和GFAP/UCH-L1的分类一致性,评估S100B和GFAP/UCH-L1在外伤性颅内病变检测中的性能特点,最后评估GFAP/UCH-L1检测的实验室性能。方法:前瞻性收集来自丹麦奥胡斯大学医院一级创伤中心的379名成人创伤患者的数据进行回顾性分析。在未选择的队列中进行分析,在亚队列1 (n = 218)中进行分析,即在其图表中有任何TBI证据的患者,以及在亚队列2 (n = 105)中进行分析,即mTBI患者定义为格拉斯哥昏迷评分≥14,损伤严重程度评分≤15,并在创伤后6小时或12小时内采血。血浆样品用于GFAP/UCH-L1测定,血清样品用于S100B测定。数据分析包括使用Cohens kappa进行一致性分析,以及三个队列中每个生物标志物的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。最后,比较ality - i平台和Simoa平台测量的GFAP/UCH-L1水平。结果:GFAP/UCH-L1和S100B的分类一致性在所有三个队列中都很高,但Cohens kappa随着临床生物标志物使用的增加而改善,并在亚队列2中达到几乎完美的一致性(0.70,95% CI 0.62-0.92)。S100b在亚队列2中的敏感性和阴性预测值为100%,而GFAP/UCH-L1在所有三个队列中均达到100%。S100B和GFAP/UCH-L1特异性相对较低。比较不同平台的GFAP/UCH-L1水平,发现alinii平台的GFAP水平比Simoa平台平均低65%,UCH-L1水平比Simoa平台高84%。结论:在本研究中,S100B与GFAP/UCH-L1对mTBI患者的分类几乎完全一致,在检测外伤性颅内病变方面具有相当的诊断性能。因此,我们的研究结果支持GFAP/UCH-L1作为S100B检测mTBI创伤性颅内病变的可行替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The primary topics of interest in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine (SJTREM) are the pre-hospital and early in-hospital diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of emergency medicine, trauma, and resuscitation. Contributions focusing on dispatch, major incidents, etiology, pathophysiology, rehabilitation, epidemiology, prevention, education, training, implementation, work environment, as well as ethical and socio-economic aspects may also be assessed for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信