Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38676493›Full record

ReviewCentral nervous system agents in medicinal chemistry2025

The Role of Nanotechnology in Understanding the Pathophysiology of Traumatic Brain Injury.

Saranya Selvaraj, Laksiri Weerasinghe

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Central nervous system agents in medicinal chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Saranya SelvarajDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Applied sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Gangodawila, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0009-0000-2146-2915
Laksiri WeerasingheDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Applied sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Gangodawila, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0003-1255-1101
University of Sri Jayewardenepura · LK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been a growing disorder due to frequent brain dysfunction. The Glasgow Coma Scale expresses TBI as classified as having mild, moderate, or severe brain effects, according to the effects on the brain. Brain receptors undergo various modifications in their pathology through chemical synaptic pathways, leading to depression, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's disease. These brain disorders can be controlled using central receptors such as dopamine, glutamate, and γ-aminobutyric acid, which are clearly explained in this review. Furthermore, there are many complications in TBI's clinical trials and diagnostics, leading to insignificant treatment, causing permanent neuro-damage, physical disability, and even death. Bio-screening and conventional molecular-based therapies are inappropriate due to poor preclinical testing and delayed recovery. Hence, modern nanotechnology utilizing nanopulsed laser therapy and advanced nanoparticle insertion will be suitable for TBI's diagnostics and treatment. In recent days, nanotechnology has an important role in TBI control and provides a higher success rate than conventional therapies. This review highlights the pathophysiology of TBI by comprising the drawbacks of conventional techniques and supports suitable modern alternates for treating TBI.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticNanotechnologyAnimalsHumansNanoparticlesglutamatehydrophilic carbon clusters.Nanoparticlesneuro-damageperfluorocarbonstraumatic brain injuryγ-aminobutyric

Identifiers

PMID38676493
OpenAlexW4395695404

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.