ReviewAnnals of biomedical engineering2025
A Comprehensive Analysis of Inconsistencies in the Brain's Conventional Ex Vivo Mechanical Experiments.
Review in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Path-dependent viscoelastic-hyperelastic response of brain tissue under multistage shear loading.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Resolving curling and swelling in cartilage and other deformation-prone tissue explant models: a scalable, simple load-predictive flattening method enabling standardized mechanical compression.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2020, a review titled Fifty Shades of Brain: A Review on the Mechanical Testing and Modeling of Brain Tissue was published, offering a comprehensive overview of brain mechanics. While this work stands out for its insightful analysis of brain mechanics, there are certain points it did not fully address, as well as key areas that require more detailed examination. The goal of this review is not merely to summarize and report on previous studies but to highlight discrepancies in the root causes of the extensive data reported in the literature. By examining the wide-ranging data, the progression of research over six decades, and the knowledge developed during this period, we aim to identify the sources of these discrepancies and propose feasible directions for future research. Additionally, while micromechanical models have attracted significant attention in recent years, we provide evidence to emphasize that, despite their advantages, these models are not yet reliable enough to replace conventional mechanical experiments and macro-scale models. By compiling, visualizing, and analyzing data from the past six decades and integrating challenging issues into a cohesive framework, this approach provides a more actionable analysis. It simplifies navigation through the field and equips researchers with a clearer understanding of its historical progression, challenges, and opportunities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40493114What 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.