Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30854409›Full record

ArticleJournal of responsible innovation2018

Neuroethics and the NIH BRAIN Initiative.

Khara M Ramos, Karen S Rommelfanger, Henry T Greely, Walter J Koroshetz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of responsible innovation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

4 authors.

Khara M RamosNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 31 Center Dr, MSC 2540, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2614, khara.ramos@nih.gov.
Karen S RommelfangerEmory University School of Medicine, Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory Center for Ethics Neuroethics Program, Atlanta, GA 30322, (404) 727-1150, krommel@emory.edu.
Henry T GreelyStanford University, Stanford Law School, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610, (650) 723-2517, hgreely@stanford.edu.
Walter J KoroshetzNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 31 Center Dr, MSC 2540, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-3167, koroshetzw@ninds.nih.gov.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 NS999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies® (BRAIN) Initiative is focused on developing new tools and neurotechnologies to revolutionize our understanding of how the brain functions in health and disease, in large part to address the growing societal impact of neurological, mental health, and substance abuse disorders. Recent advances in neurotechnology are delivering unprecedented ways to interrogate and modulate brain function, and the BRAIN Initiative is focused on translation for human medical uses over the next decade. Since its inception, the NIH component of the BRAIN Initiative has utilized an iterative model of integrating ethics into the scientific trajectory of the Initiative, most recently with the creation of a Neuroethics Division of the NIH BRAIN Initiative Multi-Council Working Group. The Division serves as a resource of expertise, to help the BRAIN Initiative navigate issues involving ethics. Here we discuss the BRAIN Initiative, and its implications and aspirations for neuroethics. We also discuss new opportunities for collaboration and for integrating stakeholder voices.

Indexed as

BRAIN Initiativeneural circuitsneuroethicsneuromodulationneuropsychiatric disorders

Identifiers

PMID30854409
PMCPMC6405257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.