ReviewCells2020
Astroglial Isopotentiality and Calcium-Associated Biomagnetic Field Effects on Cortical Neuronal Coupling.
Review in Cells, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electromagnetic Stimulation to Reduce Disability After Ischemic Stroke: The EMAGINE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Theta Frequency Electromagnetic Stimulation Enhances Functional Recovery After Stroke.Translational stroke research · 2025Article
- Enhanced Release Probability without Changes in Synaptic Delay during Analogue-Digital Facilitation.Cells · 2024Article
- The origins of light-independent magnetoreception in humans.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Review
- β subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels in cardiovascular diseases.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- EMAGINE-Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial for determining the efficacy of a frequency tuned electromagnetic field treatment in facilitating recovery within the subacute phase following ischemic stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Fields or firings? Comparing the spike code and the electromagnetic field hypothesis.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Neuron matters: neuromodulation with electromagnetic stimulation must consider neurons as dynamic identities.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Review
- Microglia maintain the normal structure and function of the hippocampal astrocyte network.Glia · 2022Article
- Frequency-tuned electromagnetic field therapy improves post-stroke motor function: A pilot randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- On the electrical passivity of astrocyte potassium conductance.Journal of neurophysiology · 2021Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Synaptic neurotransmission is necessary but does not sufficiently explain superior cognitive faculties. Growing evidence has shown that neuron-astroglial chemical crosstalk plays a critical role in the processing of information, computation, and memory. In addition to chemical and electrical communication among neurons and between neurons and astrocytes, other nonsynaptic mechanisms called ephaptic interactions can contribute to the neuronal synchronization from different brain regions involved in the processing of information. New research on brain astrocytes has clearly shown that the membrane potential of these cells remains very stable among neighboring and distant astrocytes due to the marked bioelectric coupling between them through gap junctions. This finding raises the possibility that the neocortical astroglial network exerts a guiding template modulating the excitability and synchronization of trillions of neurons by astroglial Ca
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.