Background Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) often leads to persistent deficits in executive functioning, including inhibitory control. We evaluated the potential association between a panel of blood-based inflammatory, vascular and neuroglial markers and performance in inhibitory control tests in a cohort of patients 30 days after mTBI. Methods Executive function was assessed with Five-Digit Test (FDT), Psychology Experiment Building Language Continuous Performance Test (PEBL CPT/PCPT), and Hayling Test in 20 patients with mTBI, yielding composite scores for inhibitory control, flexibility, reaction time, and error rates. A three-stage machine learning framework was applied: (1) outlier identification using standard deviation and interquartile range methods; (2) permutation-based feature importance using Random Forest regression; and (3) multiple linear regression with backward elimination of predictors with nominal p-values ≥ 0.05. A cross-validated LASSO analysis was additionally performed as a conservative sensitivity analysis. Results Proinflammatory mediators, such as soluble CD40 ligand (sCD40L), and growth-regulated oncogene (GRO/CXCL1), were associated with poorer inhibitory control in specific measures. In contrast, the regulatory cytokine interleukin-4 (IL-4), extracellular matrix remodeling enzymes, including matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), lipocalin-2, and fibroblast activation protein (FAP), and growth factors, including platelet-derived growth factor-AA (PDGF-AA) and neuregulin-1-β1 (NRG1-β1), were associated with better performance in selected outcomes. Copeptin exhibited context-dependent associations within the PCPT. Repeated cross-validation indicated limited out-of-sample predictive performance, and the cross-validated LASSO sensitivity analysis retained no non-zero predictors. Conclusions This study leverages machine learning methods to link blood‐based biomarkers to inhibitory control in mTBI, identifying hypothesis-generating associations that require validation in larger independent cohorts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cardoso et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: