ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2020
Electrochemistry of Graphene Nanoplatelets Printed Electrodes for Cortical Direct Current Stimulation.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological performance evaluation of graphene nanoplatelets for intracranial direct current stimulation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Microfabrication Technologies for Nanoinvasive and High-Resolution Magnetic Neuromodulation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Hydrogels and Carbon Nanotubes: Composite Electrode Materials for Long-Term Electrocardiography Monitoring.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Article
- Investigation of Carbon-Based Composites for Elastic Heaters and Effects of Hot Pressing in Thermal Transfer Process on Thermal and Electrical Properties.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Possible risks stemming from the employment of novel, micrometer-thin printed electrodes for direct current neural stimulation are discussed. To assess those risks, electrochemical methods are used, including cyclic voltammetry, square-wave voltammetry, and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Experiments were conducted in non-deoxidized phosphate-buffered saline to better emulate living organism conditions. Since preliminary results obtained have shown unexpected oxidation peaks in 0-0.4 V potential range, the source of those was further investigated. Hypothesized redox activity of printing paste components was disproven, supporting further development of proposed fabrication technology of stimulating electrodes. Finally, partial permeability and resulting electrochemical activity of underlying silver-based printed layers of the device were pointed as the source of potential tissue irritation or damage. Employing this information, electrodes with corrected design were investigated, yielding no undesired redox processes.
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.