Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41903078›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2026

Preclinical Models of Traumatic Brain Injury: Advances in In Vitro Models.

Delin Zeng, Barclay Morrison

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Delin ZengDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, 351 Engineering Terrace MC 8904, 1210 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10027, USA.
Barclay MorrisonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, 351 Engineering Terrace MC 8904, 1210 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10027, USA. bm2119@columbia.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewIn vitro traumatic brain injury (TBI) models are invaluable tools for elucidating cellular injury mechanisms and enabling preclinical drug screening. This review discusses recent advances in two main areas: neural culture systems and mechanical injury models. RECENT

findingsThe adoption of human induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neural cells in 3D cultures, including cerebral organoids and scaffold-based constructs, has substantially improved species and structural relevance of in vitro TBI models. However, future development of functional vascularization and mature synaptic circuitry remains necessary. Mechanical injury models, including stretch, compression, and blast, are well established. Tissue tolerance thresholds (i.e. tissue strain and strain rate) for injury outcomes (i.e. cell death and electrophysiological deficits) have been extensively characterized in rodent studies, but comparable benchmarks for human neural cultures are lacking. With the growing use of human iPSC-derived neural cells, a critical next step is to recalibrate established mechanical injury models for human neural cultures to define human-specific tolerance thresholds, thereby enabling more mechanistically grounded preclinical therapeutic testing.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalHumansInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsElectrophysiologyHuman iPSC-derived Neural CultureIn Vitro ModelMechanical Injury ModelTraumatic Brain Injury

Identifiers

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.