Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40892744›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Ethical implications of neurotechnology in industry-academia partnerships: Insights from patient and research participant interviews.

Meredith V Parsons, Maya Skolnik, Judith Mwobobia, Erin D Solomon, James M DuBois, Tristan McIntosh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Meredith V ParsonsBioethics Research Center, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Maya SkolnikBioethics Research Center, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Judith MwobobiaBioethics Research Center, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Erin D SolomonBioethics Research Center, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3295-0698
James M DuBoisBioethics Research Center, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Tristan McIntoshBioethics Research Center, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1931-4793

Funding

Fostering Ethical Neurotechnology Academia-Industry Partnerships: A Stakeholder Engagement and Toolkit Development ProjectR01MH130519 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MCINTOSH, TRISTAN · 2022 to 2025
$1.3M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH130519
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeurotechnologies often advance through industry-academia (IA) partnerships and offer insight into brain and nervous system functions, bringing improved diagnosis and treatment options to patients. Both neurotechnology and IA partnerships pose ethical challenges that can impact research participation experiences, patient treatment, and health outcomes.

methodsInvestigators conducted interviews with 16 patients who used neurotechnology devices in therapeutic or research settings. Interviews explored participants' experiences using neurotechnology, perspectives on IA partnerships, preferences for neural data use and long-term care, and advice for future neurotechnology device users. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

resultsParticipants were generally supportive of IA partnerships. However, they also recognized that these relationships could unduly influence research and clinical decisions. While participants appreciated the information shared with them prior to using the neurotechnology, informational gaps were still identified regarding the impact of devices on daily living, disclosure of relationships with industry, plans for data use and sharing, and plans for long-term care and upkeep of the device. Participants generally supported neural data sharing to advance research or improve patient care, although for some this depended on data sensitivity and how privacy would be protected. Participants advocated for post-trial access to experimental neurotechnologies and felt that responsibility for long-term care and device maintenance is best shared among companies, doctors, academic researchers, insurance companies, and patients themselves. Future device users were advised to self-advocate, maintain realistic expectations, and learn about a device before engaging with it.

conclusionGiven current and future capabilities of neurotechnologies and the data they generate, IA partnerships that develop and commercialize neurotechnologies require careful consideration and implementation of practices that meaningfully consider patient perspectives, needs, and safety. Such practices include bias management in the design, conduct, and reporting of neurotechnology research, neural data sharing and use, post-trial device access, and informed consent processes.

Indexed as

IndustryAcademiaAdultAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID40892744
PMCPMC12404399

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.