ReviewBiotechnology and bioengineering2018
Microfluidic platforms for the study of neuronal injury in vitro.
Review in Biotechnology and bioengineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 3D Human Neuron-on-Chip Platform to Monitor Neuronal Injury Responses.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- Engineering Brain Injury In Vitro: Human iPSC-Based Organoids in Microfluidic Systems.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Lipid nanoparticle-mediated Cd14 siRNA delivery ameliorates the acute inflammatory response to intracortical microelectrode implantation.Acta biomaterialia · 2026Article
- Custom-engineered hydrogels for delivery of human iPSC-derived neurons into the injured cervical spinal cord.Biomaterials · 2024Article
- A Microfluidic High-Capacity Screening Platform for Neurological Disorders.ACS chemical neuroscience · 2024Article
- Assessment of corneal nerve regeneration after axotomy in a compartmentalized microfluidic chip model with automated 3D high resolution live-imaging.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2024Article
- Functional bioengineered tissue models of neurodegenerative diseases.Biomaterials · 2023Review
- Recent Progress and Perspectives on Neural Chip Platforms Integrating PDMS-Based Microfluidic Devices and Microelectrode Arrays.Micromachines · 2023Review
- Models of traumatic brain injury-highlights and drawbacks.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- Microfluidics for Neuronal Cell and Circuit Engineering.Chemical reviews · 2022Review
- A Brief Review of In Vitro Models for Injury and Regeneration in the Peripheral Nervous System.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Modeling Neurodegenerative Diseases UsingFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Tumor-on-a-chip: from bioinspired design to biomedical application.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2021Review
- The Emergence of Model Systems to Investigate the Link Between Traumatic Brain Injury and Alzheimer's Disease.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Review
- Recent progress in translational engineered in vitro models of the central nervous system.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2020Review
- Current advances in in vitro models of central nervous system trauma.Current opinion in biomedical engineering · 2020Article
- CurrentCurrent opinion in biomedical engineering · 2020Article
- A Microfluidic Culture Platform to Assess Axon Degeneration.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2020Article
- In Vitro Blood-Brain Barrier-Integrated Neurological Disorder Models Using a Microfluidic Device.Micromachines · 2019Review
- Microdevice Development and Artificial Organs.Artificial organs · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) affects 5.3 million people in the United States, and there are 12,500 new cases of spinal cord injury (SCI) every year. There is yet a significant need for in vitro models of TBI and SCI in order to understand the biological mechanisms underlying central nervous system (CNS) injury and to identify and test therapeutics to aid in recovery from neuronal injuries. While TBI or SCI studies have been aided with traditional in vivo and in vitro models, the innate limitations in specificity of injury, isolation of neuronal regions, and reproducibility of these models can decrease their usefulness in examining the neurobiology of injury. Microfluidic devices provide several advantages over traditional methods by allowing researchers to (1) examine the effect of injury on specific neural components, (2) fluidically isolate neuronal regions to examine specific effects on subcellular components, and (3) reproducibly create a variety of injuries to model TBI and SCI. These microfluidic devices are adaptable for modeling a wide range of injuries, and in this review, we will examine different methodologies and models recently utilized to examine neuronal injury. Specifically, we will examine vacuum-assisted axotomy, physical injury, chemical injury, and laser-based axotomy. Finally, we will discuss the benefits and downsides to each type of injury model and discuss how researchers can use these parameters to pick a particular microfluidic device to model CNS injury.
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.