ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2026
Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Their Extracellular Vesicles in Neurological Disorders: Mechanisms, Delivery Strategies, and a Translational Roadmap.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neurological disorders-including ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, neurodegenerative disease, chronic neuropathic and inflammatory pain, peripheral nerve injury, and selected psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders-remain major causes of death and disability. Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells (hUC-MSCs) and their extracellular vesicles (EVs) are being investigated as regenerative and immunomodulatory products, but translation is constrained by product heterogeneity, limited direct clinical evidence, uncertain CNS exposure, and incompletely validated potency assays. Main Body: This narrative review critically compares hUC-MSC and hUC-MSC-EV evidence by indication, model, route, dose, mechanism, outcome, and clinical stage. It distinguishes direct product-specific findings from contextual evidence involving other MSC products. Mechanistic signals include innate immune reprogramming, attenuation of inflammasome activity and oxidative stress, neurovascular-unit protection, and support of angiogenesis, synaptic remodeling, and axonal repair. We evaluate delivery-route limitations, biomaterial-assisted retention, manufacturing and characterization requirements, and a staged translational roadmap aligned with established MSC and EV standards. Conclusion: The evidence base is promising but predominantly preclinical, heterogeneous, and weighted toward cell-based studies. Direct clinical evidence is currently concentrated in spinal cord injury and is insufficient to establish efficacy. Progress requires product-specific reporting, dose-normalized biodistribution, validated mechanism-linked potency assays, manufacturing comparability, multicenter replication, and randomized trials with prespecified target-engagement and functional endpoints.
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.