Usage Information
Abstract
BACKGROUND Symptoms of early-onset neonatal sepsis (EOS) in preterm infants are nonspecific and overlap with normal postnatal physiological adaptations and noninfectious pathologies. This clinical uncertainty and the lack of reliable EOS diagnostics results in liberal use of antibiotics in the first days to weeks of life, leading to increased risk of antibiotic-related morbidities in infants who do not have an invasive infection. METHODS To identify potential biomarkers for EOS in newborn infants, we used unlabeled tandem mass spectrometry proteomics to identify differentially abundant proteins in the umbilical cord blood of infants with and without culture-confirmed EOS. Proteins were then confirmed using immunoassay, and logistic regression and random forest models were built, including both biomarker concentration and clinical variables to predict EOS. RESULTS These data identified 5 proteins that were significantly upregulated in infants with EOS, 3 of which (serum amyloid A, C-reactive protein, and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein) were confirmed using a quantitative immunoassay. The random forest classifier for EOS was applied to a cohort of infants with culture-negative presumed sepsis. Most infants with presumed sepsis were classified as resembling infants in the control group, with low EOS biomarker concentrations.CONCLUSION These results suggest that cord blood biomarker screening may be useful for early stratification of EOS risk among neonates, improving targeted, evidence-based use of antibiotics early in life. FUNDING NIH, Gerber Foundation, Friends of Prentice, Thrasher Research Fund, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, and Stanley Manne Children’s Research Institute of Lurie Children’s.
Authors
Leena B. Mithal, Mark E. Becker, Ted Ling-Hu, Young Ah Goo, Sebastian Otero, Aspen Kremer, Surya Pandey, Nicola Lancki, Yawei Li, Yuan Luo, William Grobman, Denise Scholtens, Karen K. Mestan, Patrick C. Seed, Judd F. Hultquist
Usage data is cumulative from July 2025 through July 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 3,924 | 360 |
| 826 | 135 | |
| Figure | 736 | 5 |
| Table | 414 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 397 | 9 |
| Citation downloads | 389 | 0 |
| Totals | 6,686 | 509 |
| Total Views | 7,195 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
