Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25478023›Full record

ReviewAlzheimer's research & therapy2014

Considerations for animal models of blast-related traumatic brain injury and chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

Lee E Goldstein, Ann C McKee, Patric K Stanton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Expression of GFAP and Tau Following Blast Exposure in the Cerebral Cortex of Ferrets.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Lee E GoldsteinBoston University School of Medicine and College of Engineering, 670 Albany Street, 4th Floor, Boston 02118, MA, USA ; Boston University Alzheimer's Disease Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Robinson Hall, 7th Floor, Boston 02118, MA, USA.
Ann C McKeeBoston University Alzheimer's Disease Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Robinson Hall, 7th Floor, Boston 02118, MA, USA ; US Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 South Huntington Avenue, Boston 02130, MA, USA.
Patric K StantonDepartments of Neurology, Cell Biology & Anatomy, New York Medical College, Basic Science Building, Rm 217, Valhalla 10595, NY, USA.

Funding

Neuropathology CoreP30AG013846 · NIA · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI KOWALL, NEIL W. · 1996 to 2020
$29.1M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG013846
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The association of military blast exposure and brain injury was first appreciated in World War I as commotio cerebri, and later as shell shock. Similar injuries sustained in modern military conflicts are now classified as mild traumatic brain injury (TBI). Recent research has yielded new insights into the mechanisms by which blast exposure leads to acute brain injury and chronic sequelae, including postconcussive syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, post-traumatic headache, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a tau protein neurodegenerative disease. Impediments to delivery of effective medical care for individuals affected by blast-related TBI include: poor insight into the heterogeneity of neurological insults induced by blast exposure; limited understanding of the mechanisms by which blast exposure injures the brain and triggers sequelae; failure to appreciate interactive injuries that affect frontal lobe function, pituitary regulation, and neurovegetative homeostasis; unknown influence of genetic risk factors, prior trauma, and comorbidities; absence of validated diagnostic criteria and clinical nosology that differentiate clinical endophenotypes; and lack of empirical evidence to guide medical management and therapeutic intervention. While clinicopathological analysis can provide evidence of correlative association, experimental use of animal models remains the primary tool for establishing causal mechanisms of disease. However, the TBI field is confronted by a welter of animal models with varying clinical relevance, thereby impeding scientific coherence and hindering translational progress. Animal models of blast TBI will be far more translationally useful if experimental emphasis focuses on accurate reproduction of clinically relevant endpoints (output) rather than scaled replication of idealized blast shockwaves (input). The utility of an animal model is dependent on the degree to which the model recapitulates pathophysiological mechanisms, neuropathological features, and neurological sequelae observed in the corresponding human disorder. Understanding the purpose of an animal model and the criteria by which experimental results derived from the model are validated are critical components for useful animal modeling. Animal models that reliably demonstrate clinically relevant endpoints will expedite development of new treatments, diagnostics, preventive measures, and rehabilitative strategies for individuals affected by blast TBI and its aftermath.

Identifiers

PMID25478023
PMCPMC4255537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.