Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29213304›Full record

ReviewJournal of biological engineering2017

Engineering the human blood-brain barrier in vitro.

John J Jamieson, Peter C Searson, Sharon Gerecht

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biological engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Towards Novel BiomimeticBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Astrocytes and human artificial blood-brain barrier models.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2022
    Review
  19. Review
  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.

John J JamiesonDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA.
Peter C SearsonInstitute for Nanobiotechnology, 100 Croft Hall, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA.
Sharon GerechtDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is the interface between the vasculature and the brain, regulating molecular and cellular transport into the brain. Endothelial cells (ECs) that form the capillary walls constitute the physical barrier but are dependent on interactions with other cell types. In vitro models are widely used in BBB research for mechanistic studies and drug screening. Current models have both biological and technical limitations. Here we review recent advances in stem cell engineering that have been utilized to create innovative platforms to replicate key features of the BBB. The development of human in vitro models is envisioned to enable new mechanistic investigations of BBB transport in central nervous system diseases.

Indexed as

blood-brain barrierinduced pluripotent stem cellsin vitro modelingneurovascular unit

Identifiers

PMID29213304
PMCPMC5713119

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.