ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2025
Paradigm Shift in Global Governance of Medical Brain-Computer Interface: Addressing Practical Challenges Through Institutional Innovation.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Vision Restoration to People with Long-Term Blindness Using the Brain-Computer Interface Technology: A Sociotechnical Research Framework to Improve Usefulness for Users.Patient preference and adherence · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid advancement of medical brain-computer interface (BCI) technology necessitates the transformation and upgrading of traditional governance paradigms urgently. China, the United States, and the European Union hold prominent positions in the global medical BCI landscape and have developed three highly representative governance models. Existing research on medical BCI primarily focuses on specific countries or regions, but it has failed to conduct a comprehensive comparison of governance frameworks across different jurisdictions from a horizontal perspective. In this study, a horizontal policy text analysis was employed to comprehensively compare the divergent approaches of China, the United States, and the European Union in regulating medical BCI, focusing on regulatory frameworks, approval procedures, neural data governance, and ethical governance. China's medical BCI governance is state-led, prioritizing safety; the United States features innovation-driven flexibility; the European Union uses an empowerment model to strictly mitigate risks. Yet these three models have inherent drawbacks. To ensure the healthy development of medical BCI, we suggest China, the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions establish a lifecycle regulatory mechanism, introduce the regulatory sandbox, promote collaborative governance among multiple subjects, build hierarchical informed consent rules, endow users with neurorights and refine BCI ethical governance.
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.