Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22012276›Full record

ArticleGenes & nutrition2012

Do polyphenols enter the brain and does it matter? Some theoretical and practical considerations.

Sebastian Schaffer, Barry Halliwell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes & nutrition, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Understanding mechanisms of antioxidant action in health and disease.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2024
    Review
  11. ACS omega · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sebastian SchafferDepartment of Biochemistry, Centre for Life Sciences, National University of Singapore, 22 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117456, Singapore.
Barry Halliwell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although several epidemiological and intervention studies suggest that polyphenols (PPs) and PP-rich foods may improve memory and cognition in animals and humans, PPs' mode of action is only poorly understood. To help distinguish between the different modes of action that have been proposed for PPs, it is obviously important to know how much PPs can accumulate in the brain, if any at all. However, reliable data on PP uptake into the brain of animals are limited as many studies failed to report important control procedures during data acquisition. In this paper, we summarize published data on the penetration of PPs into animal brain and review some hypotheses to explain the biological basis of potentially health-beneficial effects of PPs to the brain. Finally, we highlight promising new approaches, especially those of a hormetic dose-response and gut microbiota-brain interaction, which may allow a better understanding of PPs' mode of action in animals and humans.

Identifiers

PMID22012276
PMCPMC3316747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.