ReviewStem cell reviews and reports2022
Tracking Neural Stem Cells in vivo: Achievements and Limitations.
Review in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical translational research on stem cell products: prospects and challenges.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- CG-RecNet: a gated and attention-fused deep learning framework for label-free classification of neural stem cell differentiation via imaging flow cytometry.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Sustaining Brain Youth by Neural Stem Cells: Physiological and Therapeutic Perspectives.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Review
- Neural stem cells for Parkinson's disease management: Challenges, nanobased support, and prospects.World journal of stem cells · 2023Review
- Directional induction of neural stem cells, a new therapy for neurodegenerative diseases and ischemic stroke.Cell death discovery · 2023Review
- Potential injectable hydrogels as biomaterials for central nervous system injury: A narrative review.Ibrain · 2023Review
- Review
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
Neural stem cell (NSC) therapies are developing rapidly and have been proposed as a treatment option for various neurological diseases, such as stroke, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. However, monitoring transplanted NSCs, exploring their location and migration, and evaluating their efficacy and safety have all become serious and important issues. Two main problems in tracking NSCs have been noted: labeling them for visibility and imaging them. Direct labeling and reporter gene labeling are the two main methods for labeling stem cells. Magnetic resonance imaging and nuclear imaging, including positron emission tomography, single-photon emission computed tomography, and optical imaging, are the most commonly used imaging techniques. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Thus, multimodal imaging, which combines two or more imaging methods to complement the advantages and disadvantages of each, has garnered increased attention. Advances in image fusion and nanotechnology, as well as the exploration of new tracers and new imaging modalities have substantially facilitated the development of NSC tracking technology. However, the safety issues related to tracking and long-term tracking of cell viability are still challenges. In this review, we discuss the merits and defects of different labeling and imaging methods, as well as recent advances, challenges and prospects in NSC tracking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35122628What 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.