4.2 Article

Blood Biomarkers Relate to Cognitive Performance Years after Traumatic Brain Injury in Service Members and Veterans

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1355617720001071

关键词

UCH-L1; GFAP; Tau; NFL; Military; Mild neurocognitive disorder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that serum UCH-L1 and GFAP may predict cognitive outcomes following complicated mild and more severe TBI, with unexpected correlations in the injured control group.
Objective: This study examines the relationship of serum total tau, neurofilament light (NFL), ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) with neurocognitive performance in service members and veterans with a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Method: Service members (n = 488) with a history of uncomplicated mild (n = 172), complicated mild, moderate, severe, or penetrating TBI (sTBI; n = 126), injured controls (n = 116), and non-injured controls (n = 74) prospectively enrolled from Military Treatment Facilities. Participants completed a blood draw and neuropsychological assessment a year or more post-injury. Six neuropsychological composite scores and presence/absence of mild neurocognitive disorder (MNCD) were evaluated. Within each group, stepwise hierarchical regression models were conducted. Results: Within the sTBI group, increased serum UCH-L1 was related to worse immediate memory and delayed memory (R (2)Delta = .065-.084, ps < .05) performance, while increased GFAP was related to worse perceptual reasoning (R (2)Delta = .030, p = .036). Unexpectedly, within injured controls, UCH-L1 and GFAP were inversely related to working memory (R (2)Delta = .052-.071, ps < .05), and NFL was related to executive functioning (R (2)Delta = .039, p = .021) and MNCD (Exp(B) = 1.119, p = .029). Conclusions: Results suggest GFAP and UCH-L1 could play a role in predicting poor cognitive outcome following complicated mild and more severe TBI. Further investigation of blood biomarkers and cognition is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据