ArticleBiomaterials2026
Transcriptomic analysis of the physiological responses to injuries induced accompanying intracortical microelectrode implantation.
Article in Biomaterials, 2026. 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.
- Lipid nanoparticle-mediated Cd14 siRNA delivery ameliorates the acute inflammatory response to intracortical microelectrode implantation.Acta biomaterialia · 2026Article
- Spatial transcriptomics on an expanded dataset at the brain-electrode interface: exploration of variability and identification of novel biomarkers.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The neuroinflammatory response to intracortical microelectrodes (IMEs) is regarded as a major contributor to device performance degradation and failure. Iatrogenic injuries from the craniotomy, IME insertion, and the continued presence of the implanted device all evoke a temporally mediated neuroinflammatory response. Transcriptomic analyses have emerged as a highly sensitive and detailed approach to characterizing and quantifying the neuroinflammatory response to IME implantation. Therefore, we used transcriptomic analyses to update the historic characterization of the component injuries associated with IME devices to differentiate surgical and device-related contributions to neuroinflammation and provide an updated view of a decades-old problem. Four injury profiles - uninjured, craniotomy-only, stab wound, and implant - were applied to each rat in different locations corresponding to traditional IME placement. At 2, 8, or 16 weeks after surgery, tissue was extracted and processed using bulk transcriptomic analysis with a custom panel of 212 genes related to neuroinflammation and neuronal health. Many genes were significantly differentially expressed compared to naïve controls across time points, with highly similar gene and pathway profiles observed across the craniotomy-only, stab wound, and implant groups. Additionally, the uninjured tissue region also exhibited neuroinflammation-related gene expression changes. The results presented here suggest that the neuroinflammatory response due to the intracortical implant can extend to distal brain regions. The persistent and widespread neuroinflammatory response indicates a need for novel strategies to minimize the iatrogenic effects of neural implants and suggests that the placement of additional implants for increased tissue access may come at the cost of exacerbating neuroinflammation.
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.