This review evaluates point-of-care biosensing for triaging mild traumatic brain injury, suggesting improved clinical decision-making.
Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) represents the majority of head injury presentations in emergency departments (EDs), yet only a minority of patients have acute intracranial lesions on computed tomography (CT). This leads to widespread use of unnecessary CT scans. Point-of-care (POC) biosensing, defined as analytical testing performed at or near the site of patient care, offers a promising solution to this dilemma by enabling rapid biomarker quantification to inform CT decision-making. This review aims to evaluate POC-compatible biosensing strategies for ultra-early mTBI triage, with emphasis on platforms, matrix effects, and benchmarking aligned with CT-based decision-making. Two key precedents support this approach: (1) the integration of S100B into Scandinavian Neurotrauma Committee guidelines, which has demonstrated the potential for safe reduction of CT scans, and (2) the regulatory clearance of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) testing to rule out the need for head CT in adults with suspected mTBI (Glasgow Coma Scale 13–15) when serum is collected within 12 hours of injury. Accordingly, this review focuses on the most implementable use case for mTBI, namely CT triage/rule-out. It synthesizes the current biomarker landscape (S100B, GFAP, UCH-L1), analyzes POC-suitable sensing modalities, and proposes a practical validation and benchmarking framework aligned with this intended use. A critical component is interference testing and real-world sample robustness, including vulnerabilities such as hemolysis-related elevation of UCH-L1. In conclusion, the most reliable path for biosensor translation in mTBI is to anchor development and validation to the ED CT-triage use case, emphasizing decision-point robustness and resilience to real-world sample variability over pure analytical sensitivity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: