Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40083033›Full record

ReviewBioelectronic medicine2025

Overcoming failure: improving acceptance and success of implanted neural interfaces.

Ashley N Dalrymple, Sonny T Jones, James B Fallon, Robert K Shepherd, Douglas J Weber

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioelectronic medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Friend, Not Foe: Lowered Tissue Reactivity to Long-Term Polyimide Implants.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  6. Neural Interfaces for Bioelectronic Medicine.Bioelectronic medicine · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Autonomous Implants.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Ashley N DalrympleDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. ashley.dalrymple@utah.edu.
Sonny T JonesDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
James B FallonBionics Institute, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Robert K ShepherdBionics Institute, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Douglas J WeberDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implanted neural interfaces are electronic devices that stimulate or record from neurons with the purpose of improving the quality of life of people who suffer from neural injury or disease. Devices have been designed to interact with neurons throughout the body to treat a growing variety of conditions. The development and use of implanted neural interfaces is increasing steadily and has shown great success, with implants lasting for years to decades and improving the health and quality of life of many patient populations. Despite these successes, implanted neural interfaces face a multitude of challenges to remain effective for the lifetime of their users. The devices are comprised of several electronic and mechanical components that each may be susceptible to failure. Furthermore, implanted neural interfaces, like any foreign body, will evoke an immune response. The immune response will differ for implants in the central nervous system and peripheral nervous system, as well as over time, ultimately resulting in encapsulation of the device. This review describes the challenges faced by developers of neural interface systems, particularly devices already in use in humans. The mechanical and technological failure modes of each component of an implant system is described. The acute and chronic reactions to devices in the peripheral and central nervous system and how they affect system performance are depicted. Further, physical challenges such as micro and macro movements are reviewed. The clinical implications of device failures are summarized and a guide for determining the severity of complication was developed and provided. Common methods to diagnose and examine mechanical, technological, and biological failure modes at various stages of development and testing are outlined, with an emphasis on chronic in vivo characterization of implant systems. Finally, this review concludes with an overview of some of the innovative solutions developed to reduce or resolve the challenges faced by implanted neural interface systems.

Indexed as

BiocompatibilityBioelectronicsChronic in vivoFailure testingMedical devicesNeural interfaces

Identifiers

PMID40083033
PMCPMC11907899

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.