Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40493114›Full record

ReviewAnnals of biomedical engineering2025

A Comprehensive Analysis of Inconsistencies in the Brain's Conventional Ex Vivo Mechanical Experiments.

Hadi Nosrati, Mehdi Shafieian, Nabiollah Abolfathi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Hadi NosratiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Ave, Tehran, Iran.
Mehdi ShafieianDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Ave, Tehran, Iran. shafieian@aut.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8533-0241
Nabiollah AbolfathiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Ave, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BrainModels, BiologicalAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansStress, MechanicalBrain mechanicsCompressionShearTensionTesting procedure

Identifiers

PMID40493114

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.