ArticleDevice2026
Unifying Consent Standards for Implantable Brain-Computer Interfaces.
Article in Device, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advancing data protections for implantable brain-computer interfaces.Communications medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Implantable brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs) are approaching clinical deployment and can transform care for people with speech and motor impairment by restoring their ability in communication, movement, and aspects of agency. As a means of neurological intervention, iBCIs are not ethically or clinically analogous to current clinically established procedures or devices. They combine invasive neurosurgery, continuous neural data capture, adaptive machine-learning-based decoding, software dependence, and functionality that can change over time. These features create distinctive ethical, legal, clinical, and practical challenges that conventional informed consent frameworks do not adequately address. In this review and analysis, we present a framework and checklist to help guide more consistent and comprehensive informed consent for iBCIs to strengthen respect for autonomy, align stakeholder expectations, reduce fragmentation across sites, and support ethically robust translation of iBCIs into clinical practice.
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.