Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36596702›Full record

ReviewAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2023

Commonly Overlooked Factors in Biocompatibility Studies of Neural Implants.

Lucas S Kumosa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Commonly Overlooked Factors in Biocompatibility Studies of Neural Implants.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023
    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

1 author.

Lucas S KumosaNeuronano Research Center, Department of Experimental Medical Science, Medical Faculty, Lund University, Medicon Village, Byggnad 404 A2, Scheelevägen 8, Lund, 223 81, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7169-341X

Funding

Pilot Study Data 2015-02463Pilot Study Data 2016-06195Pilot Study Data 349-2006-127Swedish Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biocompatibility of cutting-edge neural implants, surgical tools and techniques, and therapeutic technologies is a challenging concept that can be easily misjudged. For example, neural interfaces are routinely gauged on how effectively they determine active neurons near their recording sites. Tissue integration and toxicity of neural interfaces are frequently assessed histologically in animal models to determine tissue morphological and cellular changes in response to surgical implantation and chronic presence. A disconnect between histological and efficacious biocompatibility exists, however, as neuronal numbers frequently observed near electrodes do not match recorded neuronal spiking activity. The downstream effects of the myriad surgical and experimental factors involved in such studies are rarely examined when deciding whether a technology or surgical process is biocompatible. Such surgical factors as anesthesia, temperature excursions, bleed incidence, mechanical forces generated, and metabolic conditions are known to have strong systemic and thus local cellular and extracellular consequences. Many tissue markers are extremely sensitive to the physiological state of cells and tissues, thus significantly impacting histological accuracy. This review aims to shed light on commonly overlooked factors that can have a strong impact on the assessment of neural biocompatibility and to address the mismatch between results stemming from functional and histological methods.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsNervous SystemAnimalsElectrodesNeuronsProstheses and ImplantsBiocompatible Materialsbiocompatibilityneural implantsneural interfaces

Identifiers

PMID36596702
PMCPMC9951391

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.