Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42404413›Full record

ReviewBasic and clinical neuroscience2025

Looking at Philosophy for Children and Its Outcomes Through a Neuroscience Lens.

Fariba Khodagholi, Maryam Alsadat Mousavi, Yahya Ghaedi, Shakiba Salarvandian, Fatemeh Vosoughian, Mobina Javadi, Fereshteh Khodagholi, Solmaz Khalifeh, Roohollah Karimi, Masoud Seddighfar and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Basic and clinical neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

12 authors.

Fariba KhodagholiNeuroscience Research Center, Institute of Neuroscience and Cognition, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4911-4530
Maryam Alsadat MousaviNeuroscience Research Center, Institute of Neuroscience and Cognition, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6919-688X
Yahya GhaediDepartment of Educational Philosophy, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0220-1282
Shakiba SalarvandianNeurobiology Research Center, Institute of Neuroscience and Cognition, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8323-2717
Fatemeh VosoughianNeuroscience Research Center, Institute of Neuroscience and Cognition, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8664-9078
Mobina JavadiNeurobiology Research Center, Institute of Neuroscience and Cognition, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9851-7582
Fereshteh KhodagholiNeurobiology Research Center, Institute of Neuroscience and Cognition, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8896-9196
Solmaz KhalifehCognitive and Neuroscience Research Center (CNRC), Amiralmomenin Hospital, Tehran Medical Sciences Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5192-6634
Roohollah KarimiInstitute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Ethics and Training, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8102-8751
Masoud SeddighfarNeuroscience Research Center, Institute of Neuroscience and Cognition, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1835-6309
Shima BarzinNeurobiology Research Center, Institute of Neuroscience and Cognition, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1302-1152
Leila DargahiNeuroscience Research Center, Institute of Neuroscience and Cognition, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7777-5435

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Philosophy for Children (P4C) is one of the most effective teaching methods, having various educational, cognitive, and emotional benefits for children. This method is based on three types of thinking: critical (logic), caring (ethics), and creative (aesthetics). This study aimed to review the various outcomes of applying this strategy in people with different genders, ages, and socioeconomic statuses (SESs) from a neuroscience perspective. Methods: This is a narrative review study. The related studies were selected for review based on relevance to gender, age, and SES, and findings were categorized to highlight patterns and divergences in outcomes. Results: Evidence suggests that gender and SES can affect the effectiveness of P4C in certain aspects. However, the interaction between gender, age, and SES seems to shape the overall efficacy of P4C in nuanced ways. Conclusion: The P4C has shown promising benefits for diverse populations. However, demographic variables such as gender, age, and SES may modulate its impact. Further interdisciplinary research is needed to clarify these interactions and optimize implementation strategies.

Indexed as

AgeBrain regionsGenderNeurosciencePhilosophy for children (P4C)Socioeconomic status (SES)

Identifiers

PMID42404413
PMCPMC13332364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.