ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Ethical gaps in closed-loop neurotechnology: a scoping review.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-generation biomedical nanorobots: active design, intelligent control, and translational opportunities in regenerative and minimally invasive medicine.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Reopening Motor Learning Windows: Targeted Re-Engagement of Latent Pathways via Non-Invasive Neuromodulation.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advancing neuroengineering with Neuromorphic Twins.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Materials and System Design for Self-Decision Bioelectronic Systems.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Review
- Precision neurodiversity: personalized brain network architecture as a window into cognitive variability.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- Cognitive frontiers: neurotechnology and global internet governance.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Closed-loop (CL) neurotechnology, which dynamically adapts to patients' neural states, offers new opportunities for treating neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, its real-time feedback mechanisms raise critical ethical challenges. This scoping review assesses whether and how clinical studies involving CL neurotechnologies address ethical concerns. We analyzed peer-reviewed research on human participants to evaluate both the presence and depth of ethical engagement. Despite the prominence of CL systems in neuroethical discourse, explicit ethical assessments remain rare. Ethical issues are typically addressed only implicitly, folded into technical or procedural discussions without structured analysis. Most notably, our findings reveal a persistent gap between regulatory compliance and meaningful ethical reflection. To address this, we propose empirically grounded, community-responsive recommendations to strengthen ethical oversight in this field. These recommendations aim to support governance frameworks that are context-sensitive, reflexive, and capable of addressing the complex ethical terrain introduced by adaptive neurotechnologies.
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.