ReviewBiomedicines2025
Focused Modulation of Brain Activity: A Narrative Review.
Review in Biomedicines, 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.
- Engram cell vulnerability in neurodegeneration: from mechanistic insights to therapeutic horizons.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Review
- More than Dysbiosis: Imbalance in Humoral and Neuronal Bidirectional Crosstalk Between Gut and Brain in Alzheimer's Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- State-dependent memory mechanisms insights from neural circuits and clinical implications.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A wide range of strategies have been developed to modulate dysfunctional brain activities. This narrative review provides a comparative analysis of biophysical, genetic, and biological neuromodulation approaches with an emphasis on their known or unknown molecular targets and translational potential. The review incorporates data from both preclinical and clinical studies covering deep brain stimulation, transcranial electrical and magnetic stimulation, focused ultrasound, chemogenetics, optogenetics, magnetogenetics, and toxin-based neuromodulation. Each method was assessed based on specificity, safety, reversibility, and mechanistic clarity. Biophysical methods are widely used in clinical practice but often rely on empirical outcomes due to undefined molecular targets. Genetic tools offer cell-type precision in experimental systems but face translational barriers related to delivery and safety. Biological agents, such as botulinum neurotoxins, provide long-lasting yet reversible inhibition via well-characterized molecular pathways. However, they require stereotaxic injections and remain invasive. To overcome individual limitations and improve targeting, delivery, and efficacy, there is a growing interest in the synthesis of multiple approaches. This review highlights a critical gap in the mechanistic understanding of commonly used methods. Addressing this gap by identifying molecular targets may help to improve therapeutic precision. This concise review could be valuable for researchers looking to enter the evolving field of the neuromodulation of brain function.
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.