ArticleJournal of cell communication and signaling2015
"Knock once for yes, twice for no".
Article in Journal of cell communication and signaling, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have indicated that the expression of CCN3, a member of the CCN family of proteins, was tightly regulated during central nervous development and was associated with acquisition of cognitive functions in rats (Perbal, Mol Pathol 54(2):57-79, 2001; Su et al. Sheng Li Xue Bao 52(4):290-294, 2000) therefore suggesting that CCN3 might be involved in higher levels of physiological communication in the brain. In spite of the considerable amount of progress made into the understanding of neuronal organization and communication, reducing the knowledge gap between brain cellular biology and behavioral studies remains a huge challenge. Mind-to-mind communication has been the subject of numerous science fiction writings, intense research and emotional debates for many years. Scientists have tried for a long time to achieve transmission of messages between living subjects via non intrusive protocols. Thanks to the great progress made in imagery and neurosciences, another dimension of neuronal function in communication has now been documented. Two recent experimental demonstrations of direct brain to brain communication without physical contact (Grau et al. (2014) Conscious brain-to-brain communication in humans using non-invasive technologies. PLoS One. Aug 19;9(8)- - Rao et al. (2014) A direct brain-to-brain interface in humans. PLoS One. Nov 5;9(11)) pave the road to more sophisticated applications that could profoundly affect communications of humans with other humans, animals and machines. Although the wide use of such applications might seem a long way off, they raise quite a number of ethical, legal and societal issues.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.