ArticleIBRO neuroscience reports2026
Neuroprotection and immunomodulation after treatment with NeuroBoost and NeuroHeal following ventral root crush in mice.
Article in IBRO neuroscience reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacological immunomodulation can prevent neuronal loss and reactive gliosis after injuries to spinal nerve roots. NeuroBoost (NB) and NeuroHeal (NH) were used to compare their effects on neuronal survival, glial and immune response, and functional recovery after root injury in mice. Our data showed that the NB combination presented a significant difference in the survival of motoneurons after injury compared to the vehicle group (0.71 ± 0.07 vs. 0.60 ± 0.01, p = 0.04, ratio ipsi/contralateral), decreased astrogliosis and microglia reactivity (astrogliosis: 7 dpi: VE vs. NB 4.4 ± 1.06 vs. 3.08 ± 0.39, p = 0.007; 28 dpi: VE vs. NB 5.02 ± 1.06 vs. 1.82 ± 0.53, p = 0.0003; microglial reactivity: 28 dpi: VE vs. NB 3.95 ± 0.88 vs. 2.63 ± 0.37, p = 0.02; integrated density of pixels - ratio ipsi/contralateral). A shift to a non-reactive profile was observed and functionally, the NB combination brought gains in gait recovery. In relation to treatment with NH, we observed that the combination showed a significant difference in neuronal survival at 7 days of treatment (0.76 ± 0.05 vs. 0.62 ± 0.10, p = 0.04) compared to the vehicle group. Also, a decrease in astrogliosis (7 dpi: VE vs. NH 4.4 ± 1.06 vs. 3.04 ± 0.83, p = 0.031; 28 dpi: VE vs. NH 5.02 ± 1.06 vs. 2.27 ± 0.45, p = 0.0007), and an increase in the M1 macrophages was observed after 14 days of treatment (VE: 45.26 vs. NH: 71.23 ± 18.36, p = 0.01). The functional recovery results were similar to the NB combination. Overall, both combinations showed significant benefits after root injury in mice, pointing to the possibility of clinical translation.
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.