ReviewAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland)2014
Assessing Antioxidant Capacity in Brain Tissue: Methodologies and Limitations in Neuroprotective Strategies.
Review in Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurological Effects ofNutrients · 2026Article
- Optimization of ultrasound extraction of functional compound from makiang seed by response surface methodology and antimicrobial activity of optimized extract with its application in orange juice.Ultrasonics sonochemistry · 2022Article
- Cyanidin-3-glucoside activates Nrf2-antioxidant response element and protects against glutamate-induced oxidative and endoplasmic reticulum stress in HT22 hippocampal neuronal cells.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Article
- Biochemical Properties and Neuroprotective Effects of Compounds in Various Species of Berries.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
- Chemical Analysis of Extracts from Newfoundland Berries and Potential Neuroprotective Effects.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of putative neuroprotective compounds with antioxidant activity described in the literature continues to grow. Although these compounds are validated using a variety of in vivo and in vitro techniques, they are often evaluated initially using in vitro cell culture techniques in order to establish toxicity and effective concentrations. Both in vivo and in vitro methodologies have their respective advantages and disadvantages, including, but not limited to, cost, time, use of resources and technical limitations. This review expands on the inherent benefits and drawbacks of in vitro and in vivo methods for assessing neuroprotection, especially in light of proper evaluation of compound efficacy and neural bioavailability. For example, in vivo studies can better evaluate the effects of protective compounds and/or its metabolites on various tissues, including the brain, in the whole animal, whereas in vitro studies can better discern the cellular and/or mechanistic effects of compounds. In particular, we aim to address the question of appropriate and accurate extrapolation of findings from in vitro experiment-where compounds are often directly applied to cellular extracts, potentially at higher concentrations than would ever cross the blood-brain barrier-to the more complex scenario of neuroprotection due to pharmacodynamics in vivo.
Indexed as
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.