Prognostic value of dynamic changes in C‑reactive protein‑albumin ratio for patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage.

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL

Biomarkers in medicine Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-09-25 DOI:10.1080/17520363.2026.2737284

Jia Li, Guo-Min Xie, Yan Mao, Pan-di Chen, Guang-Yao Zhu, Geng-Fan Ye, Mao-Song Chen, Tao Song, Yi Liu

{"title":"Prognostic value of dynamic changes in C‑reactive protein‑albumin ratio for patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage.","authors":"Jia Li, Guo-Min Xie, Yan Mao, Pan-di Chen, Guang-Yao Zhu, Geng-Fan Ye, Mao-Song Chen, Tao Song, Yi Liu","doi":"10.1080/17520363.2026.2737284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To examine the predictive value of the C‑reactive protein‑albumin ratio (CAR) measured at distinct time points.Methods: Multivariate logistic regression was applied to examine the links of CAR 1 (at admission), CAR 2 (7th day after admission), and ΔCAR (change between CAR 1 and CAR 2) with 3-month prognosis.Results: CAR 2 (AUC = 0.704, 95%CI: 0.650-0.757) yielded a statistically significantly higher predictive performance for the 3-month prognosis relative to CAR 1 (AUC = 0.624, 95%CI: 0.563-0.685) and ΔCAR (AUC = 0.624, 95%CI: 0.563-0.685) (for CAR 1 or ΔCAR vs. CAR 2, both p < 0.05). The ICH score + CAR 2 (AUC = 0.817, 95%CI: 0.764-0.869) provided significantly increased predictive efficacy versus the ICH score alone (AUC = 0.776, 95%CI: 0.717-0.835) (p = 0.018). Similarly, the predictive performance of the ICH index + CAR 2 (AUC = 0.810, 95%CI: 0.762-0.859) surpassed that of the ICH index alone (AUC = 0.772, 95%CI: 0.721-0.823) (p = 0.004).Conclusions: CAR measured on the 7th day of admission was markedly linked to a poor 3-month prognosis and significantly increased predictive efficacy of existing prognostic scoring systems for patients with ICH. All observed associations and predictive advantages of day-7 CAR are derived from retrospective single-center data; prospective, multicenter cohort studies with independent external datasets are mandatory to verify our findings before any clinical translational use.","PeriodicalId":9182,"journal":{"name":"Biomarkers in medicine","volume":" ","pages":"803-813"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13644598/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomarkers in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17520363.2026.2737284","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To examine the predictive value of the C‑reactive protein‑albumin ratio (CAR) measured at distinct time points.

Methods: Multivariate logistic regression was applied to examine the links of CAR 1 (at admission), CAR 2 (7th day after admission), and ΔCAR (change between CAR 1 and CAR 2) with 3-month prognosis.

Results: CAR 2 (AUC = 0.704, 95%CI: 0.650-0.757) yielded a statistically significantly higher predictive performance for the 3-month prognosis relative to CAR 1 (AUC = 0.624, 95%CI: 0.563-0.685) and ΔCAR (AUC = 0.624, 95%CI: 0.563-0.685) (for CAR 1 or ΔCAR vs. CAR 2, both p < 0.05). The ICH score + CAR 2 (AUC = 0.817, 95%CI: 0.764-0.869) provided significantly increased predictive efficacy versus the ICH score alone (AUC = 0.776, 95%CI: 0.717-0.835) (p = 0.018). Similarly, the predictive performance of the ICH index + CAR 2 (AUC = 0.810, 95%CI: 0.762-0.859) surpassed that of the ICH index alone (AUC = 0.772, 95%CI: 0.721-0.823) (p = 0.004).

Conclusions: CAR measured on the 7th day of admission was markedly linked to a poor 3-month prognosis and significantly increased predictive efficacy of existing prognostic scoring systems for patients with ICH. All observed associations and predictive advantages of day-7 CAR are derived from retrospective single-center data; prospective, multicenter cohort studies with independent external datasets are mandatory to verify our findings before any clinical translational use.

查看原文本刊更多论文

自发性脑出血患者C反应蛋白-白蛋白比值动态变化的预后价值。

背景：探讨在不同时间点测量C反应蛋白白蛋白比（CAR）的预测价值。方法：采用多因素logistic回归分析CAR - 1（入院时）、CAR - 2（入院后第7天）和ΔCAR （CAR - 1与CAR - 2的变化）与3个月预后的关系。结果：CAR 2 （AUC = 0.704, 95%CI: 0.650-0.757）相对于CAR 1 （AUC = 0.624, 95%CI: 0.563-0.685）和ΔCAR (AUC = 0.624, 95%CI: 0.563-0.685) （CAR 1或ΔCAR相对于CAR 2， p均p = 0.018）具有统计学意义上显著更高的3个月预后预测性能。同样，ICH指数+ CAR - 2的预测性能（AUC = 0.810, 95%CI: 0.762-0.859）优于单独ICH指数（AUC = 0.772, 95%CI: 0.721-0.823）（p = 0.004）。结论：入院第7天测量的CAR与较差的3个月预后显著相关，并显著提高了现有脑出血患者预后评分系统的预测功效。所有观察到的第7天CAR的关联和预测优势均来自回顾性单中心数据；有独立外部数据集的前瞻性、多中心队列研究必须在任何临床转化应用之前验证我们的发现。

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

Biomarkers in medicine 医学-医学：研究与实验

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

4.50%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Biomarkers are physical, functional or biochemical indicators of physiological or disease processes. These key indicators can provide vital information in determining disease prognosis, in predicting of response to therapies, adverse events and drug interactions, and in establishing baseline risk. The explosion of interest in biomarker research is driving the development of new predictive, diagnostic and prognostic products in modern medical practice, and biomarkers are also playing an increasingly important role in the discovery and development of new drugs. For the full utility of biomarkers to be realized, we require greater understanding of disease mechanisms, and the interplay between disease mechanisms, therapeutic interventions and the proposed biomarkers. However, in attempting to evaluate the pros and cons of biomarkers systematically, we are moving into new, challenging territory. Biomarkers in Medicine (ISSN 1752-0363) is a peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal delivering commentary and analysis on the advances in our understanding of biomarkers and their potential and actual applications in medicine. The journal facilitates translation of our research knowledge into the clinic to increase the effectiveness of medical practice. As the scientific rationale and regulatory acceptance for biomarkers in medicine and in drug development become more fully established, Biomarkers in Medicine provides the platform for all players in this increasingly vital area to communicate and debate all issues relating to the potential utility and applications. Each issue includes a diversity of content to provide rounded coverage for the research professional. Articles include Guest Editorials, Interviews, Reviews, Research Articles, Perspectives, Priority Paper Evaluations, Special Reports, Case Reports, Conference Reports and Company Profiles. Review coverage is divided into themed sections according to area of therapeutic utility with some issues including themed sections on an area of topical interest. Biomarkers in Medicine provides a platform for commentary and debate for all professionals with an interest in the identification of biomarkers, elucidation of their role and formalization and approval of their application in modern medicine. The audience for Biomarkers in Medicine includes academic and industrial researchers, clinicians, pathologists, clinical chemists and regulatory professionals.