ReviewIBRO neuroscience reports2023
Adult human neurogenesis: A view from two schools of thought.
Review in IBRO neuroscience reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cell and tissue reprogramming: Unlocking a new era in medical drug discovery.Pharmacological reviews · 2025Review
- Understanding the Intersection Between Hormonal Dynamics and Brain Plasticity in Alzheimer's Disease: A Narrative Review for Implementing New Therapeutic Strategies.Health science reports · 2025Review
- Olfactory neurogenesis plays different parts at successive stages of life, implications for mental health.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Are we truly losing neurons as we grow older? If yes, why, and how can the lost neurons be replaced or compensated for? Is so-called adult neurogenesis (ANG) still a controversial process, particularly in the human cerebral cortex? How do adult-born neurons -if proven to exist- contribute to brain functions? Is adult neurogenesis a disease-relevant process, meaning that neural progenitor cells are dormant in adulthood, but they may be reactivated, for example, following stroke? Is the earnest hope to cure neurological diseases justifying the readiness to accept ANG claim uncritically? These are all fundamental issues that have not yet been firmly explained. Although it is completely understandable that some researchers believe that we can add new neurons to our inevitably deteriorating brain, the brain regeneration process still possesses intellectually and experimentally diverting views, as until now, there has been significant confusion about the concept of ANG. This paper is not intended to be an extensively analytical review distilling all findings and conclusions presented in the ANG literature. Instead, it is an attempt to discuss the commonly entertained opinions and then present our reflective insight concerning the current status quo of the field, which might help redirect research questions, avoid marketing an exaggerated hope, and more importantly, save the ever-limited resources, namely, intellectuals' time, facilities, and grants.
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.