ReviewCommunications medicine2026
Advancing data protections for implantable brain-computer interfaces.
Review in Communications medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implantable brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs) are rapidly transitioning from proof-of-concept devices to early clinical application. The high-resolution neural signals they capture may yield insights beyond those derived from conventional health data. In this Review, we examine how clinical iBCI data remain insufficiently protected, despite existing privacy laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Five core gaps are identified: overreliance on conventional de-identification, limited individual control and rights, conflated consent practices, limited guardrails against misuse, and underspecified ownership. We examine strategies to address these gaps, including protections for de-identified data, stronger iBCI data rights and control, separate data consent, limits on harmful secondary uses, and monetization guardrails. As iBCIs transition from research tools to real-world clinical practice, clinicians, researchers, developers, and regulators, in dialogue with prospective and current iBCI users, will play central roles in advancing patient autonomy and privacy.
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.