Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35295222›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in toxicology2022

The Future of 3D Brain Cultures in Developmental Neurotoxicity Testing.

Helena T Hogberg, Lena Smirnova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 3D Printing for Neural Repair: Bridging the Gap in Regenerative Medicine.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Modulation of CaScientific reports · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Helena T HogbergCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Lena SmirnovaCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human brain is undoubtedly the most complex organ in the body. Thus, it is difficult to develop adequate and at the same time human relevant test systems and models to cover the aspects of brain homeostasis and even more challenging to address brain development. Animal tests for Developmental Neurotoxicity (DNT) have been devised, but because of complex underlying mechanisms of neural development, and interspecies differences, there are many limitations of animal-based approaches. The high costs, high number of animals used per test and technical difficulties of these tests are prohibitive for routine DNT chemical screening. Therefore, many potential DNT chemicals remain unidentified. New approach methodologies (NAMs) are needed to change this. Experts in the field have recommended the use of a battery of human

Indexed as

3D brain modelbrain MPSbrain organoidsDNTneurotoxicity

Identifiers

PMID35295222
PMCPMC8915853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.