ReviewNano convergence2016
The nanomaterial toolkit for neuroengineering.
Review in Nano convergence, 2016. 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.
- Neuro-nanotechnology: diagnostic and therapeutic nano-based strategies in applied neuroscience.Biomedical engineering online · 2023Review
- Nanoarchitectured air-stable supported lipid bilayer incorporating sucrose-bicelle complex system.Nano convergence · 2022Article
- Flexible nanopillar-based immunoelectrochemical biosensor for noninvasive detection of Amyloid beta.Nano convergence · 2020Article
- Three-Dimensional Graphene-RGD Peptide Nanoisland Composites That Enhance the Osteogenesis of Human Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Article
- Nano-Architectural Approaches for Improved Intracortical Interface Technologies.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a growing interest in developing effective tools to better probe the central nervous system (CNS), to understand how it works and to treat neural diseases, injuries and cancer. The intrinsic complexity of the CNS has made this a challenging task for decades. Yet, with the extraordinary recent advances in nanotechnology and nanoscience, there is a general consensus on the immense value and potential of nanoscale tools for engineering neural systems. In this review, an overview of specialized nanomaterials which have proven to be the most effective tools in neuroscience is provided. After a brief background on the prominent challenges in the field, a variety of organic and inorganic-based nanomaterials are described, with particular emphasis on the distinctive properties that make them versatile and highly suitable in the context of the CNS. Building on this robust nano-inspired foundation, the rational design and application of nanomaterials can enable the generation of new methodologies to greatly advance the neuroscience frontier.
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.