Objective Blood-based biomarkers are becoming increasingly relevant for the diagnosis of acute traumatic brain injury (TBI) in adults, but they remain underutilized in children. There exists the need for high-quality evidence to support their use in defined clinical contexts. Methods This review synthesizes recent evidence on three structural biomarkers cleared for clinical use in adult TBI: glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), ubiquitin C-terminal hydroxylase L1 (UCH-L1), and S100 calcium-binding protein B (S100B) for the diagnosis, management, and prognostication in pediatric TBI. Results Notably, plasma/serum biomarker levels in non-injured children were highest in infancy and inversely associated with age, and reference levels for GFAP and S100B across pediatric age groups were higher than those of non-injured adults. Biomarker levels <24 hours post-injury showed acceptable diagnostic performance for clinically-important TBI (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC): GFAP=0.75, UCH-L1=0.76, S100B=0.77), and GFAP and UCH-L1 showed strong performance for traumatic intracranial lesions on computed tomography (CT) (overall AUC: GFAP=0.85, UCH-L1=0.83, S100B=0.67; patients aged <5-years: GFAP=1.00, UCH-L1=0.79, S100B=0.62). In European interventional studies, clinical management aided by S100B was associated with reductions in CT utilization by 67-70% and hospitalizations from 54%, underscoring its utility for improving diagnostic efficacy and safety (i.e., decreasing ionizing radiation and time in-hospital). Structural biomarkers predicted death/severe functional disability at 12 months post-injury (AUC: GFAP=1.00, UCH-L1=0.98, S100B=0.96). Conclusions Blood-based biomarkers hold promise for improving pediatric TBI care. Prospective studies incorporating protocolized assessments are needed to validate their diagnostic and prognostic performance and support clinical qualification and implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: