Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32166141›Full record

ArticleBrain and neuroscience advances

Progress in Neuroengineering for brain repair: New challenges and open issues.

Gabriella Panuccio, Marianna Semprini, Lorenzo Natale, Stefano Buccelli, Ilaria Colombi, Michela Chiappalone

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain and neuroscience advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Enabling Model-Based Design for Real-Time Spike Detection.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. LFP Analysis of Brain Injured Anesthetized Animals Undergoing Closed-Loop Intracortical Stimulation.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gabriella PanuccioDepartment of Neuroscience and Brain Technologies (NBT), Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT), Genova, Italy.
Marianna SempriniRehab Technologies, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Lorenzo NataleiCub Facility, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Stefano BuccelliDepartment of Neuroscience and Brain Technologies (NBT), Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT), Genova, Italy.
Ilaria ColombiDepartment of Neuroscience and Brain Technologies (NBT), Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT), Genova, Italy.
Michela ChiappaloneRehab Technologies, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1427-5147
Italian Institute of Technology · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, biomedical devices have proven to be able to target also different neurological disorders. Given the rapid ageing of the population and the increase of invalidating diseases affecting the central nervous system, there is a growing demand for biomedical devices of immediate clinical use. However, to reach useful therapeutic results, these tools need a multidisciplinary approach and a continuous dialogue between neuroscience and engineering, a field that is named neuroengineering. This is because it is fundamental to understand how to read and perturb the neural code in order to produce a significant clinical outcome.

resultsIn this review, we first highlight the importance of developing novel neurotechnological devices for brain repair and the major challenges expected in the next years. We describe the different types of brain repair strategies being developed in basic and clinical research and provide a brief overview of recent advances in artificial intelligence that have the potential to improve the devices themselves. We conclude by providing our perspective on their implementation to humans and the ethical issues that can arise.

conclusionsNeuroengineering approaches promise to be at the core of future developments for clinical applications in brain repair, where the boundary between biology and artificial intelligence will become increasingly less pronounced.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligencebioethicsbrain disorderclosed loopneuroprosthetics

Identifiers

PMID32166141
PMCPMC7058228
OpenAlexW2803311150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.