Evidence mapPaperPMID 41310741Full record

ReviewFluids and barriers of the CNS2025

The duality of the BBB: breaking the myth of the blood-brain barrier breakdown.

Frédéric Calon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Fluids and barriers of the CNS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The neuroimmune-glutamate hypothesis of addiction.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

1 author.

Frédéric CalonFaculté de pharmacie, Université Laval, Québec, Canada. Frederic.Calon@pha.ulaval.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4203-0887

Funding

CIHR PJT 168927, PJT 183735Fonds de la recherche du Québec FRQ-S, #253895
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on the blood-brain barrier (BBB) has greatly evolved over the past 20 years, with growing recognition of its role as a multicellular complex regulating brain homeostasis. Previously confined to pharmaceutical sciences, the BBB has now become a growing focus of interest for neuroscientists and clinicians. However, the word ‘barrier’, implying something that can be broken, opened, or disrupted, can lead to confusion when one tries to relate this concept to its underlying cell biology. Here, echoing the fundamental question posed by Lina Stern when she first defined the BBB in 1921, I suggest that the confusion stems from conflating the physicochemical properties intrinsic to the barrier with the living biological multicellular interface. Notwithstanding its complexity, the BBB is now often simplistically portrayed as “permeable”, particularly in the context of prevalent diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, depression, multiple sclerosis, or stroke. Such overly simplified concepts promoted over the past two decades have led to misconceptions that hinder a proper understanding of the BBB, affecting both the general public and seasoned scientists. This misunderstanding is not without harmful clinical impact as many interpret the BBB as something that often breaks, leading to a massive entry of drugs and other blood-borne compounds into the brain, which is very rarely the case. After outlining the likely causes of these misconceptions and trying to define the concepts of “BBB permeability” and “brain bioavailability”, I offer several recommendations: (1) more frequent use of quantitative methods involving small hydrophilic compounds to measure BBB integrity; (2) avoid terms such as ‘BBB disruption,’ ‘opening,’ or ‘breakdown,’ and instead favor terms like ‘dysfunction’ or, where appropriate, ‘leakage’, essentially when describing biological defects assessed by changes in large molecule localization; and (3) always account for the dual nature of the BBB, as both a physicochemical barrier and a living biological interface.

Indexed as

Blood-Brain BarrierAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID41310741
PMCPMC12661749

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.