Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41886379›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

Ultrasensitive measurement of brain penetration mechanics and blood vessel rupture with microscale probes.

Abdulmalik Obaid, Mina-Elraheb Hanna, Song-Wen Huang, Yu-Ting Hu, Omar Jáidar, William Nix, Jun B Ding, Nicholas A Melosh, Yu-Wei Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Ultrasensitive measurement of brain penetration mechanics and blood vessel rupture with microscale probes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Journal of neural engineering · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. A mosquito mouthpart-like bionic neural probe.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. CHIME: CMOS-HostedFrontiers in neuroscience · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Abdulmalik Obaid *Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304.ORCID 0000-0003-1670-4419
Mina-Elraheb Hanna *Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304.
Song-Wen Huang *Institute of Molecular Biology, Academia Sinica, Taipei 115, Taiwan.ORCID 0009-0006-4204-111X
Yu-Ting HuInstitute of Molecular Biology, Academia Sinica, Taipei 115, Taiwan.
Omar JáidarDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
William NixDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304.
Jun B DingDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Nicholas A MeloshDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304.ORCID 0000-0002-2601-1379
Yu-Wei WuInstitute of Molecular Biology, Academia Sinica, Taipei 115, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-4459-087X

Funding

Academia Sinica (AS) Startup FundGG gift fund gift fundHHS | NIH | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) NS014861National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) 113-2321-B-001-012National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) 114-2321-B-001 -005SU | Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University (Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute) Seed Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microscale electrodes, on the order of 10 to 100 µm, are rapidly becoming critical tools for neuroscience and brain-machine interfaces for their high channel counts and spatial resolution, yet the mechanical details of how probes at this scale insert into brain tissue are largely unknown. Here, we performed quantitative measurements of the force and compression mechanics together with real-time microscopy for in vivo insertion of a systematic series of microelectrode probes as a function of diameter (7.5 to 100 µm and rectangular Neuropixels) and tip geometry (flat, angled, and electrochemically sharpened). These results elucidated the role of tip geometry, surface forces, and mechanical scaling with diameter. Surprisingly, the insertion force postpia penetration was constant with distance and did not depend on tip shape. Real-time microscopy revealed that at small enough lengthscales (<25 µm), blood vessel rupture and bleeding during implantation could be entirely avoided. This appears to occur via vessel displacement, avoiding capture on the probe surface which led to elongation and tearing for larger probes. We propose a three-zone model to account for the probe size dependence of bleeding, and provide mechanistic guidance for probe design.

Indexed as

Blood VesselsBrainElectrodes, ImplantedAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaBrain-Computer InterfacesMiceMicroelectrodesbrain–machine interfacesneural probe insertion mechanicspia penetrationtwo-photon imagingvascular injury

Identifiers

PMID41886379
PMCPMC13037841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.