ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2020
Mediation of Cardiac Macrophage Activity
Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The neuroimmune axis in breast cancer: from mechanistic insights to clinical applications.BMC medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation: a bibliometric study on current research hotspots and status.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
- Outcomes of hypothalamic oxytocin neuron-driven cardioprotection after acute myocardial infarction.Basic research in cardiology · 2023Article
- The Effects of Vagus Nerve Stimulation on Animal Models of Stroke-Induced Injury: A Systematic Review.Biology · 2023Review
- The plasticity of cardiac sympathetic nerves and its clinical implication in cardiovascular disease.Frontiers in synaptic neuroscience · 2022Review
- Identification of key pharmacodynamic markers of American ginseng against heart failure based on metabolomics and zebrafish model.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMyocardial infarction (MI) reperfusion therapy causes paradoxical cardiac complications. Following restoration of blood flow to infarcted regions, a multitude of inflammatory cells are recruited to the site of injury for tissue repair. Continual progression of cardiac inflammatory responses does, however, lead to adverse cardiac remodeling, inevitably causing heart failure. MAIN BODY: Increasing evidence of the cardioprotective effects of both invasive and non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) suggests that these may be feasible methods to treat myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury
conclusionEmerging published data suggest that auricular VNS is an inexpensive healthcare modality, mediating the dynamic balance between pro- and anti-inflammatory responses in cardiac macrophages and ameliorating cardiac ischemia/reperfusion injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.