ReviewMicromachines2020
Microphysiological Systems for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Central Nervous System.
Review in Micromachines, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hydrogels and cryogels as in vitro engineered 3D neurodegenerative models: scope and significance.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Human skeletal muscle tissue chip autonomous payload reveals changes in fiber type and metabolic gene expression due to spaceflight.NPJ microgravity · 2023Article
- Protective Effects ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- An Overview of Extracellular Matrix-Based Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Editorial for the Special Issue on Microfluidic Brain-on-a-Chip.Micromachines · 2021Article
- Brain-on-a-Chip: Characterizing the next generation of advancedAPL bioengineering · 2021Article
- Brain-printing biometrics underlying mechanism as an early diagnostic technique for Alzheimer's disease neurodegenerative type.Current research in physiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neurodegenerative diseases are among the most severe problems in aging societies. Various conventional experimental models, including 2D and animal models, have been used to investigate the pathogenesis of (and therapeutic mechanisms for) neurodegenerative diseases. However, the physiological gap between humans and the current models remains a hurdle to determining the complexity of an irreversible dysfunction in a neurodegenerative disease. Therefore, preclinical research requires advanced experimental models, i.e., those more physiologically relevant to the native nervous system, to bridge the gap between preclinical stages and patients. The neural microphysiological system (neural MPS) has emerged as an approach to summarizing the anatomical, biochemical, and pathological physiology of the nervous system for investigation of neurodegenerative diseases. This review introduces the components (such as cells and materials) and fabrication methods for designing a neural MPS. Moreover, the review discusses future perspectives for improving the physiological relevance to native neural systems.
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.