Charles Greenberg: What If D-dimer Isn’t ‘Non-Specific’ At All?
Charles Greenberg, Professor of Medicine at Medical University of South Carolina, shared a post on LinkedIn:
”After studying D-dimer biology for many years, I’ve started to wonder if we’ve been misunderstanding one of the most common tests in medicine.
What if D-dimer isn’t ‘non-specific’ at all?
For decades we’ve used D-dimer mainly for one purpose:
ruling out venous thromboembolism.
If the level is normal and the clinical probability is low, we safely exclude DVT or pulmonary embolism. In that role the test performs remarkably well.
But when D-dimer is elevated, clinicians often dismiss it:
- Infection
- Inflammation
- Cancer
- Trauma
- Pregnancy
- Aging
In other words: ‘non-specific’
But the biology tells a different story.
D-dimer appears only when cross-linked fibrin is broken down.
And that cross-linking step is controlled by Factor XIII, which stabilizes fibrin architecture and determines how resistant a clot is to fibrinolysis.
So the D-dimer signal actually integrates several biological systems:
- Fibrin architecture — Factor XIII crosslinking
- Inflammation — endothelial injury and coagulation activation
- Genetic susceptibility — emerging polygenic thrombotic risk
- Disease biology — cancer, sepsis, COVID, systemic stress
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted this clearly.
Patients with severe disease often had markedly elevated D-dimer levels, sometimes without clear thrombosis on imaging, yet those levels strongly predicted clinical outcomes.
Seen this way, D-dimer may not simply be a clot marker.
It may be a systems-level biomarker of fibrin turnover reflecting the interaction between coagulation, inflammation, and tissue injury.
As genomics and multi-omics frameworks evolve, laboratory markers we once labeled ‘non-specific’ may actually be reporting complex biological networks that we are only beginning to understand.
D-dimer might just be the first example.
Discussion
Are we underestimating what so-called ‘non-specific’ biomarkers are actually telling us about systemic disease biology?
References
Adam SS et al. Blood. 2009
Righini M et al. JAMA. 2014
Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost. 2020
Ay C et al. Blood. 2012
Muszbek L et al. Physiol Rev. 2011”
Stay updated with Hemostasis Today.
-
Mar 5, 2026, 15:27Reza Bavarsad Shahripour: When Waveform Patterns Tell the Story of Proximal Flow
-
Mar 5, 2026, 15:23Mud Alvi: The Interaction Between LV Injury and Cryptogenic Stroke
-
Mar 5, 2026, 15:23Crina Chrysostomou: Residents vs AI in the Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage on Emergency CT
-
Mar 5, 2026, 15:22Registration and Abstract Submission for ESH BMFS 2026 Are Now Open – ESH
-
Mar 5, 2026, 15:17Lucie Raskin: New FAERS Evidence Suggests Lower VTE Risk With Natural Estrogen COCs
-
Mar 5, 2026, 15:08Gijs Aertssen: Predictors of Recovery After Joint Bleeds in Patients with Bleeding Disorders
-
Mar 5, 2026, 14:59Discussing Bleeding Before, During and After Pregnancy at the WFH Webinar – WFH
-
Mar 5, 2026, 14:59Strategies to Prevent Bleeding in VWD Patients Supported with Left Ventricular Assist Devices
-
Mar 5, 2026, 14:54Wolfgang Miesbach: The Diagnostic Challenge of Bleeding Disorder of Unknown Cause