Erratum: "Evaluation of Neurotoxicity in BALB/c Mice following Chronic Exposure to Polystyrene Microplastics".

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Microplastic-Induced Disruption of Intestinal Barrier Integrity and Triggering Neuroinflammatory Responses Through Gut-Brain Axis Dysregulation Mediated by NF-κB/PPAR-γ/BDNF Signalling Pathways.Molecular neurobiology · 2026
   Article
2. Mechanistic insight of neurodegeneration due to micro/nano-plastic-induced gut dysbiosis.Archives of toxicology · 2025
   Review
3. Microplastics and human health: unraveling the toxicological pathways and implications for public health.Frontiers in public health · 2025
   Review
4. Vitamin D modulation of brain-gut-virome disorder caused by polystyrene nanoplastics exposure in zebrafish (Danio rerio).Microbiome · 2023
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Evaluation of Neurotoxicity in BALB/c Mice following Chronic Exposure to Polystyrene Microplastics.2022

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.