Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30544507›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2018

Shu Hui Lye, Stanislava Chtarbanova

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Gender-specific gene profiling inIBRO neuroscience reports · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Identification ofFrontiers in immunology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Frontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Towards early detection of neurodegenerative diseases: A gut feeling.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Frontiers in immunology · 2022
    Review
  17. UsingFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Review
  18. Drosophila as a model to explore secondary injury cascades after traumatic brain injury.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2021
    Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shu Hui LyeDepartment of Biological Sciences, 300 Hackberry lane, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA. slye@crimson.ua.edu.
Stanislava ChtarbanovaDepartment of Biological Sciences, 300 Hackberry lane, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA. schtarbanova@ua.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7865-028X
University of Alabama · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Innate immunity is the first line of defense against invading pathogens and plays an essential role in defending the brain against infection, injury, and disease. It is currently well recognized that central nervous system (CNS) infections can result in long-lasting neurological sequelae and that innate immune and inflammatory reactions are highly implicated in the pathogenesis of neurodegeneration. Due to the conservation of the mechanisms that govern neural development and innate immune activation from flies to mammals, the lack of a classical adaptive immune system and the availability of numerous genetic and genomic tools, the fruit fly

Indexed as

AnimalsAutophagyBrainDrosophilaImmunity, InnateModels, AnimalPhagocytosisautophagybrain infectionDrosophilainflammaginginnate immunityneurodegenerationphagocytosis

Identifiers

PMID30544507
PMCPMC6321579
OpenAlexW2903600715

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.