ReviewAngiogenesis2026
Evaluating the endothelial glycocalyx from bench to bedside: a translational framework for microvascular assessment.
Review in Angiogenesis, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The endothelial glycocalyx (eGCX) plays a crucial role in mechanotransduction, maintaining vascular barrier integrity, and facilitating leukocyte-endothelial crosstalk. However, accurately quantifying it is challenging due to fragmented methodologies. As the eGCX is a highly hydrated, labile layer that readily collapses upon chemical fixation and dehydration, reported thickness values span orders of magnitude depending on the specific measurement principle employed. Consequently, relying on single-metric claims risks both false-positive and false-negative conclusions. Compounding this challenge, eGCX composition, morphology, and injury responses vary significantly across organs and vascular beds. This spatial heterogeneity is a factor that standard static in vitro cultures fundamentally fail to recapitulate. To overcome these limitations, we present a cross-platform evaluation framework organized around three orthogonal axes: structure (coverage, penetrability, and component localization), function (permeability and perfusion), and turnover (shedding versus synthesis). We delineate how each readout corresponds to a distinct physical sub-compartment, critically appraising methods that include confocal lectin staining, rapid-freeze electron microscopy (EM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), transendothelial resistance, intravital exclusion-zone imaging, perfused boundary region analysis, and circulating shedding biomarkers. For each platform, including in vitro, in vivo, and clinical settings, we propose minimal yet robust endpoint packages that integrate assay intent, organ context, and hemodynamic covariates. This approach shifts the field toward convergent, translatable inference for eGCX-targeted therapeutics. Beyond cataloguing techniques, the central contribution of this framework is the explicit mapping of each commonly used readout to the specific physical sub-compartment it interrogates, coupled with organ- and vascular-compartment-aware prioritization, so that convergent agreement among orthogonal structural, functional, and turnover measurements-rather than any single value-becomes the basis for falsifiable, translatable inference.
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.