Why the study?
What are the advantages, disadvantages, and translational challenges of routine and candidate biomarkers in the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction?
What are the advantages, disadvantages, and translational challenges of routine and candidate biomarkers in the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction?
This review summarizes the current landscape, advantages, and translational challenges of established and emerging biomarkers for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Translational barriers persist for AMI biomarkers; leaves open which candidates merit prospective validation before clinical use.
We evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of routine enzymatic and nonenzymatic biomarkers and the literature evidence of other candidate biomarkers in the diagnosis of AMI, and discuss challenges and constraints that limit translational use from bench to bedside.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aydın et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: