Effect of blood alcohol on the diagnostic accuracy of glial fibrillary acidic protein and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 for traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: A TRACK-TBI study.
Summary
In this prospective multicenter TRACK-TBI diagnostic study, investigators examined whether alcohol intoxication changed the accuracy of GFAP plus UCH-L1 for CT-detectable traumatic intracranial injury. Among 2,320 patients assessed within 24 hours of TBI at 18 US Level I trauma centers, combined biomarker AUC was 0.949 with blood alcohol >300 mg/dL, 0.858 with 81–300 mg/dL, 0.849 with 0–80 mg/dL, and 0.883 when alcohol level was unavailable. The study supports preserved discrimination in intoxicated patients but does not itself validate a disposition pathway.
Why it matters
Intoxication alone need not make GFAP/UCH-L1 biologically uninterpretable in an otherwise eligible TBI evaluation. Use remains bounded by the assay's validated indication and local implementation, not by this observational subgroup analysis alone.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Diagnostic study
- Population
- Adults and other TRACK-TBI participants presenting within 24 hours of TBI at 18 US Level I trauma centers; alcohol-stratified diagnostic analysis.
- Sample size
- 2320
- Intervention
- Plasma GFAP and UCH-L1 measured on Abbott i-STAT Alinity and ARCHITECT assays.
- Comparator
- Diagnostic performance across blood-alcohol strata: >300, 81–300, 0–80 mg/dL, or unavailable.
- Primary endpoint
- Discrimination (AUC) of combined GFAP and UCH-L1 for CT-positive traumatic intracranial injury.
Main findings
- 48.3% of the cohort had a positive brain CT.
- Combined biomarker AUC was 0.949 with blood alcohol >300 mg/dL versus 0.849 with 0–80 mg/dL.
- Elevated alcohol did not lower combined-biomarker discrimination in this cohort.
Limitations
This was a secondary diagnostic-accuracy analysis with a high CT-positive prevalence (48.3%) at Level I trauma centers. It did not test a biomarker-led CT-reduction or discharge strategy, and the most severe alcohol subgroup was small (n=54).
Read the primary source
Full text: Abstract available; full text paywalled.
Original sourceDOI: 10.1111/acem.15109
PMID: 39967286
Material reviewed: abstract.
Source retrieved Oct 29, 2026. Primary PubMed abstract and publisher abstract were reviewed. The paper reports a prospective multicenter diagnostic analysis, not a randomized imaging strategy.
Corrections & review history
No corrections recorded. Human review: not yet human-reviewed.