ReviewBiomaterials translational2025
Hydrogel-based biomaterials for brain regeneration after stroke: Gap to clinical translation.
Review in Biomaterials translational, 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.
- Injectable sericin/gelatin hydrogel enables sustained BDNF delivery and promotes neural repair under hemorrhagic injury conditions.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Review
- Impact of the Chronic Ischemic Stroke Microenvironment on Silk Fibroin Hydrogel Biodegradation andACS omega · 2026Article
- Mechanobiology of hippocampal neurogenesis: directing neural stem cell fate through physical cues.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2026Review
- Advanced engineering strategies for biomaterial scaffolds application in tendon-bone interface regeneration.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Nanoscale Sprayable Hydrogels for Cancer Management: Nanoparticle-Loaded Formulations for Therapy and Prevention.International journal of nanomedicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the limited effects of current treatments on brain repair and regeneration, stroke continues to be the predominant cause of death and long-term disability on a global scale. In recent years, hydrogel-based biomaterials combined with stem cells and extracellular vesicles have emerged as promising new treatments to improve brain regeneration after stroke. However, the clinical translation of hydrogel-based biomaterials for the treatment of brain injury is still far from satisfactory. In this review, we first summarise the present status of stroke-related clinical treatments and the advantages provided by hydrogel-based materials in combination with stem cells and extracellular vesicles in preclinical studies. We then focus on the possible causes of the gap between preclinical studies and clinical translation of hydrogel-based biomaterials from the perspective of biocompatibility and safety, the choices of preclinical models, the lack of clinical noninvasive imaging methods, standardisation and quality control, manufacturing scalability, and regulatory compliance. With the progress in the abovementioned areas, we believe that the clinical translation of hydrogel-based biomaterials will greatly improve brain regeneration after stroke and that this improvement will be realised by the general public in the near future.
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.