ReviewCureus2026
A Systematic Review of Native Languages Mapped With Direct Electrical Stimulation During Awake Craniotomy.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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.
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
Human language exhibits both universal characteristics and remarkable diversity. While neuroimaging has identified a shared fronto-temporo-parietal network across languages, causal inferences require techniques such as direct electrical stimulation (DES), which is performed during awake craniotomy. However, it is unclear which native languages have been mapped using DES. We conducted an analysis of which native languages were mapped in monolingual patients undergoing DES during awake craniotomy. Data was extracted from an open-access systematic review dataset of language errors from patients during awake craniotomy. An additional literature review and author communication were performed to identify the language type. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared analysis were used. The analysis identified 893 stimulation sites across 73 studies, involving nine languages: French, English, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Dutch, Spanish, German, and Persian. These languages represent 27.2% of native languages spoken globally. The predominant mapped language family was Indo-European (670 stimulation sites; 75%), followed by Sino-Tibetan (186 stimulation sites; 20.8%) and Japonic (37 stimulation sites; 4.1%). There was a significant difference between the frequencies of the total number of global native speakers and stimulation sites (x
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.