ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Engaging patient communities in intracranial neuroscience research.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients who participate in intracranial neuroscience research make invaluable contributions to our understanding of the brain, accelerating the development of neurotechnological interventions. Engagement of patients as part of this research presents unique challenges, where study goals can be distant from immediate clinical applications and require specialized domain knowledge. Yet methods for meaningfully integrating patient communities as part of these research efforts is essential, as intracranial neuroscience guides the application of artificial intelligence for understanding and enhancing human cognition. In order to identify what patients consider meaningful research engagement we interviewed individuals who participated in a study during their Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) surgery and attended a group event where they interacted with our research team. Analysis of semi-structured interviews identified four main themes: interest in science and the future of clinical care, contributing to science to improve lives, connecting with others, and accessibility considerations. Based on these insights, we propose strategies for transformational participation of patient communities in intracranial neuroscience research with respect to engagement objectives, communication and scope. This approach offers a foundation for sustaining relationships between scientists and communities rooted in trust and transparency, to ensure that impacts of neurotechnology on human health and cognition are aligned with patient needs as well as desired public values.
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.