I can't find any studies discussing Banyan blood markers specifically but only a mention that they involve glial fibrillary axial proteins (GFAP) among others. Here's a 2017 study discussing some blood markers under different terms.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28170122/
Quote:
|
CONCLUSION: A single serum concentration of GFAP, UCH-L1, or S-100β within 6 hours of head injury may be useful in identifying and stratifying the severity of brain injury in emergency department patients with head trauma, but cannot reliably exclude a diagnosis of concussion. A positive GFAP was associated with the presence of concussion.
|
So those markers specifically have a high specificity but low sensitivity. In other words, positive tests reliably diagnose concussions but negative tests don't rule them out. The other issue may be having to administer them within 6 hours. How much does reliability decrease after that time?
It will be interesting to learn more. We have good diagnostic criteria clinically for concussions right now but it requires frequent pre screening.
Edit:
Quote:
|
In a statement announcing the approval, the F.D.A. said that the brain trauma indicator was able to predict the presence of intracranial lesions on a CT scan 97.5 percent of the time, and those who did not have such lesions 99.6 percent of the time.
|
From the NY times.
The more I read it and other studies the more it seems sensationalized. Here is a 2015 review discussing the need for CT scan:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2860826/
This study discusses two very simple methods (that are already being used) to suggest if an intracranial lesion will be found on CT (the exact same goal? of this blood marker testing), NOC and CCTHR, with both having high specificity/sensitivity already, and, more importantly, they are 100% sensitive for neurosurgical lesions (those requiring intervention).
So this doesn't seem to be adding a whole lot more to our existing diagnostic ability.