ReviewAvicenna journal of medical biotechnology2026
Challenges of the Application of Emerging Neuroscience Technologies in Courts.
Review in Avicenna journal of medical biotechnology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significant advances in neuroscience have improved the ability of physicians to diagnose and manage neurological and psychiatric disorders in patients. The use of neuroscience evidence in criminal trials in developed countries has increased significantly in the last two decades. This rapid increase has raised questions among the legal and scientific communities about the effects that these technologies can have on judicial decision-makers. The role of neuroscience in criminal liability is a topic that has been discussed in recent years. The purpose of this article is to review the use of neuroscience evidence in the criminal justice system, as well as current research examining the effects of neuroscience evidence on judicial decision-makers in criminal cases. This review is warranted given legal and scientific concerns about the impact of potential bias. The present study was conducted and analyzed using a documentary method and with reference to research published in the last four years. Some argue that neuroscience is irrelevant in the criminal court, while others believe that it can help prove the lack of control of behavior by many criminals. However, the truth is likely somewhere in between, as certain types of neuroscience evidence may be useful and relevant in criminal trials. This article describes recent advances in neuroscience in the fields of functional neuroimaging and artificial intelligence "deep learning" algorithms, and examines the legal and ethical challenges and potential benefits and drawbacks.
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.