Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38427200›Full record

ReviewMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2024

Brain Banking in Dementia Studies.

Ahmet Turan Isik, Derya Kaya, Murat Gokden

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Ahmet Turan IsikUnit for Aging Brain and Dementia, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Derya KayaUnit for Aging Brain and Dementia, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Murat GokdenDivision of Neuropathology, Department of Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is now well-established practice in dementia that one clinical entity may be caused by various neurodegenerative disorders, each with different histopathological findings, whereas neuropathologically confirmed patients may have different, unusual, and atypical clinical manifestations.This inconsistency in dementia patients leads to neuropathological examination of cases, and neuropathological examination seems to be an inevitable part of dementia practice, at least until all clinical entities are properly identified for humans.Additionally, the development of disease-modifying therapies and confirmation of the actual accurate diagnosis of the neurodegenerative disease that the drug is thought to modify or act upon are of great importance for neuropathological evaluation in brain banks.Neuropathological processes coexisting among patients diagnosed with established clinical criteria or international guidelines have provided a new perspective in the context of drug development.Here, we review our routinely used methodology in the context of the brain banking process.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseNeurodegenerative DiseasesBrainHumansTissue BanksBrainDissectionNeurodegenerativeNeuropathological examinationPostmortem

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.