ReviewGlia2025
The Concept of Neuroglia - the State of the Art Circa 1900.
Review in Glia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuroglial cells: evolving concepts at the West Riding Asylum, England, 1879-1895.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Astrocytes in Brain Aging and Neurodegeneration: Cellular Mechanisms and Interventional Strategies.Journal of neurochemistry · 2026Review
- Diversity of glutamate receptors in glial cells of the mouse optic nerve.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2026Article
- The evolution of chemotherapy in brain tumors: from historical milestones to precision medicine in glioblastoma.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2026Review
- Heart-brain axis, gliotransmitters and peripheral neurogenesis: Emerging regenerative roles of cardiac nexus glia in health and disease.World journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- AMPA receptors in the evolving synapse: structure, function, and disease implications.Frontiers in synaptic neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Glial cells were first defined by Rudolf Virchow in 1856. About 40 years later, glial research had developed into a field distinct from the mainstream study of neurons as the central elements governing brain function. By that time, substantial knowledge about the properties of glial cells had accumulated, exemplified by five important publications by four distinguished investigators: Gustav Retzius, Michael von Lenhossek, Carl Weigert, and Hans Held. These treatises broadly summarized what was known about glial cells, comparing findings from leeches to humans. Practically speaking, these articles represent the foundation of our current knowledge. All five contributions were published in German, which at the time was one of the dominant languages for scientific exchange. This article summarizes and comments on their findings and thus provides insight into what was known about glial cells at that time. More importantly, in the Supporting Information, we provide English translations and original scans of these five publications, making them accessible to an international readership.
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.