ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Mind the gap: bridging ethical considerations and regulatory oversight in implantable BCI human subjects research.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanotube-Assisted Motor Neuron and Neuromuscular Junction Stabilization in Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Hypothesis for Adjunctive Therapy.Neurology international · 2026Review
- Photoencephalography as a non-electrical modality for investigating brain function: methodological and ethical considerations.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- From technological closed-loop to human-machine trust: a systematic review of ethical and communication challenges of brain-computer interface in elderly care.Frontiers in digital health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advent of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) technology brings groundbreaking advancements in medical science but also raises important ethical considerations. This manuscript explores the ethical dimensions of implantable BCIs (iBCIs), focusing on the central role of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the United States, in safeguarding participant rights and welfare. As federally mandated bodies, IRBs ensure that informed consent is obtained ethically, emphasizing participant autonomy, preventing undue coercion, while supporting clear and practical communication of risks and benefits. As part of this discussion, this paper touches on the ethical challenges surrounding the enrollment of participants with impaired consent capacity and the long-term implications of implanted brain devices. Additionally, this work underscores the critical importance of robust cybersecurity measures to prevent data breaches and unauthorized manipulation of brain activity. By examining risk assessments, data management practices, and the need for external cybersecurity expertise, this work offers a comprehensive framework for IRB review of iBCI research. This perspective aims to guide ethical iBCI research and protect human subjects in this rapidly evolving field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.