2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2012.01.033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differentiating ischemic from hemorrhagic stroke using plasma biomarkers: The S100B/RAGE pathway

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
59
1
4

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
59
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…A large study recently showed the ability of the S100B/RAGE BBM panel to distinguish between IS and ICH in a sample of 915 stroke patients (AUC 0.76) [35]. In blood sampled within 6 h from symptom onset, S100B was elevated, whereas sRAGE was lower in ICH patients compared to patients with IS.…”
Section: Selection Of Blood Biomarkers In Ichmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A large study recently showed the ability of the S100B/RAGE BBM panel to distinguish between IS and ICH in a sample of 915 stroke patients (AUC 0.76) [35]. In blood sampled within 6 h from symptom onset, S100B was elevated, whereas sRAGE was lower in ICH patients compared to patients with IS.…”
Section: Selection Of Blood Biomarkers In Ichmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies, conducted in patients with stroke, showed that soluble RAGE increase in serum after ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke as respect to control population [7,21] and identified low levels of sRAGE in the blood of intracerebral hemorrhagic patients compared with those presenting ischemic stroke [22]. The differences of sRAGE levels among different stroke subtypes could be related to acute stroke severity rather than different etiologies of the stroke subtypes [23].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Other studies have also reached a similar conclusion. [26,27] This study has few limitations. We did not correlate the radiologic finding of CT Brain such as the size of the haemorrhage with CRP levels, as we intended to find the clinical outcome.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%