ReviewArchives of pharmacal research2026
Ischemic stroke neuroprotection revisited: translational barriers and a phase-resolved, biomarker-anchored framework.
Review in Archives of pharmacal research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Voxel-Wise T2 Distribution Framework for Lesion Severity Stratification and Treatment-Response Assessment in Stroke: Insights Into Suberoylanilide Hydroxamic Acid-Induced Neuroprotection.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- From Variant Interpretation to Biomarker Translation: Multi-omics Integration in Inherited Neuromuscular Diseases.Human mutation · 2026Review
- Integrated Transcriptomic and Proteomic Analysis Elucidates the Mechanisms of Huperzine A Injection Against Cerebral Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury.Drug design, development and therapy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite extensive research defining the molecular cascades of ischemic stroke, including excitotoxicity, oxidative stress, inflammation, blood-brain barrier disruption, and regulated cell death, translation of neuroprotective strategies into effective clinical therapies has remained largely unsuccessful. Growing evidence suggests that this gap reflects recurring limitations in translational design rather than insufficient mechanistic insight, including phase-inappropriate intervention, narrow therapeutic windows, inadequate brain exposure, and lack of target engagement in heterogeneous patient populations. In this review, we critically examine why biologically plausible targets have failed to produce clinical benefit by synthesizing lessons from preclinical and clinical studies. We identify common patterns of translational failure and propose a phase-resolved, biomarker-anchored framework that prioritizes therapeutic actionability according to disease stage and neurovascular context. By repositioning biomarkers as tools for patient stratification, risk prediction, and confirmation of target engagement, this framework supports rational sequencing from hyperacute reperfusion support to stage-matched neurovascular and immune modulation and subsequent neurorestorative strategies. This decision-oriented perspective aims to guide more effective trial design and improve translational success in ischemic stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41588243What 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.