ArticleNeuroSci2026
A Flawed Conjecture Keeps Haunting Brain Energy Metabolism Research.
Article in NeuroSci, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 1988, two seminal studies were published almost simultaneously in the same scientific journal. Both spurred the field of brain energy metabolism research in new directions, culminating in a long-lasting debate that appeared to split its practitioners into two factions that seem unwilling to agree on what metabolic processes are fueling the active brain with adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The first study used rat hippocampal slices to demonstrate the ability of lactate to support neuronal function as the sole oxidative mitochondrial substrate. The second study demonstrated that upon brain stimulation, glucose consumption is not accompanied by respective oxygen consumption, but a non-oxidative glucose utilization or what has become known as "aerobic glycolysis". Consequently, for almost four decades, researchers in this field have been divided between those who profess that brain activity is supported by oxidative lactate metabolism and those who insist that non-oxidative glucose metabolism supports it. Hypotheses for both concepts were offered, "The Astrocyte Neuron Lactate Shuttle Hypothesis" and "The Efficiency Tradeoff Hypothesis," respectively. To bridge the gap between the two groups, a recent editorial, authored by over twenty leading investigators, was published. The editorial received two separate responses from investigators who supported the non-oxidative glucose consumption as the main process supporting neural activity, signaling that the gap between the two groups remained. The present perspective highlights the principal disagreements that divide this utmost important field of research. It argues that the main reason for these disagreements is rooted in the assumption that pyruvate is the end-product of aerobic glycolysis, even when many among those who adhere to this assumption accept that in the active brain glycolysis is the main provider of the necessary ATP and the end-product is lactate under aerobic conditions. The consideration of a paradigm shift, according to which lactate is the real end-product of glycolysis, independent of the presence or absence of oxygen, could bridge the great divide between those who separate glycolysis into two outcomes and those who profess that there is only one, prefix-less glycolytic pathway that always ends with the production of lactate.
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.